I was misled

Todd Kuzma wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

Oops. I said I was just here to correct errors. There's one now.
Unless you can show any connection whatsoever from the prison in Iraq
to the office of the President, you're just blowing smoke.

Does W have a sign on his desk that says "The Buck Stops
Somewhere Over There?" He seems to spend a lot of time
explaining how he's not responsible for anything.

I think he DID take responsibility for it - though that's quite
different than having orchestrated it. He's certainly trying to make
sure those responsible for the abuse pay for their actions.

I guess it would be like the president of GM "taking responsibility"
for a half dozen loading dock workers in a remote warehouse selling
crack to school kids. It's not realistic to assume any boss knows
what literally millions of employees are doing every day, and it would
be silly to hold "either president" above personally responsible
(other than as a political ploy, which is pretty obvious).

You know, Mark, you can still be a good conservative without
having to defend everything that the Bush administration
does. There are quite a few Republicans who aren't too
happy right now, and John McCain can't hide his hatred of
the Prez.

I thought you said "Republican"... ;-) McCain actually belongs to
the McCain party (rabid self-promotion above everything else). Then
every once in a while he's pretty impressive... can't figure the guy
out. Don't know if I can vote for him next time.

Hey, I think that the Democrats are being guided by a bunch
of first-class losers right now, but that doesn't mean that
I'm a bad liberal (although I prefer the term folks used in
college: "radical"). ;-)

Heh. Funny thing is, in today's world, *I'm* the "radical" (the
"norm" is falling in line behind the network talking heads' view of
reality). Ironic, no? ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

(Jonesy) wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
(Jonesy) wrote:

I suppose this is supposed to be a "pithy" rejoinder.

That WOULD be nice.

Keep on worshipping the Shrub Torture Machine.

Oops. I said I was just here to correct errors. There's one now.

It's still hyperbole, Mark. I'm sorry that you can't remember that
from one post to another.

Unless you can show any connection whatsoever from the prison in Iraq
to the office of the President, you're just blowing smoke.

DoJ memo, Mark.

You can do better than that - am I supposed to know about every DoJ
memo written in the last four years?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

(Jonesy) wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..

http://jibjab.com/thisland.html

Unfortunately, these guys are getting slammed with hits. I saw it
before the website got blasted so hard you can't get to the thing.
It's damn funny.

It got me thinking (I know that's hard for Jonesy to believe...)

I realize that you believe you are thinking. In reality, you are just
parroting conservative commentators who also buy into the propaganda.

Hmmmm... you sound just like Rush Limbaugh (substitute "liberal" for
"conservative" of course). Go figger.

Of course, I don't hold you quite as responsible since there are so
many more liberal commentators on the networks to listen to. FWIW, I
can't remember the last time I listened to a "conservative
commentator"... I guess it was probably a few minutes of Hannity and
Colmes (sp?) though I don't remember if Hannity actually said anything
while I was listening. Oh, I remember - it was when they were talking
about Bill Cosby's dressing down of the NAACP... Colmes actually
agreed with him. Probably shocked Hannity into silence.

If I thought for a minute that you had any substantial criticism of
the way conservatives go about things, I'd have more respect for your
views. (As if my respect means anything to you.)

I do have criticisms, but around here it's like flipping matches in
the middle of the great Chicago fire (another example of something
good accidentally coming from something bad).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

(Jonesy) wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
(Jonesy) wrote:

By
defining acts based on the outcome, the morality of those acts
suddenly becomes...

Relative.

Ding ding ding... there's the error bell again (two for two - you
gotta be more careful, Jonesy).

Just because you don't understand philosophy and logic does not mean I
made a mistake.

I understand both - but am driven by reality and pragmatism even more.

Number one - no one (other than you) defined the morality of the
actions in the Iraqi prison as based on the outcome.

As I said, you need to read some philosophy to understand the
principles upon which I speak. I understand completely that such
high-level ideas baffle the common conservative.

Nice dodge.

Here's a refresher - by hoping for a good outcome, one is attempting
to mitigate the immorality of the act that produced the outcome. The
two things cannot be logically separated. *You* are the one who is
trying to paint it smaller or less significant than it really is.

Another dodge. You keep trying to tie my opinion of the prison abuse
to the output. There is nothing wrong with hoping that some good will
spring from a bad/evil/unpleasant action - in fact, I'd call it
"optimism" (something you should probably study as well).

Here's why you're wrong...

Except that now you go on to make a crappy analogy of a UTILITARIAN
argument. I am sorry that you can't understand the concepts. It
makes discussion tedious.

You have no idea HOW tedious this discussion is. You've been going on
for pages and pages about an off-the-cuff statement that I hoped at
least they got some decent info out of the prison abuse. Get over it.

Say a terrorist sinks a ship. Bad thing, right?

I dunno - who does the ship belong to?

It was yours.

It makes a great reef for the fish. Good thing, right?

Was the intent to make a reef for fish? No? Then how is the analogy
relevant? An unintended good outcome is called serendipity. And in
my world, fish humans.

It's a direct result of the evil action. And getting info from those
prisoners was not an "unintended good outcome" it was the "intended
good outcome". That doesn't make the actions used any more moral or
acceptable.

Except in
your tortured world, it's still a bad thing.

For the people on the ship, yup. I don't care much about fish, except
for dinner.

You should go see "Dodge Ball" - you'd relate.

Even the fish know
better.

For you to use this as an analogy is even more silly than the previous
bicycle/car analogy.

How about Nero burning Rome? Pure evil intent. But the classic Rome
we know sprang from the ashes and totally rejuvanated the city. Same
for Chicago (though I'm not sure I can ascribe evil intent to a cow).

Read up on absolute morality vs. utilitarianism. Immanuel Kant, John
Stuart Mill, and throw in a little St. Matthew, just for kicks.

I have "read up on it" - the issue here isn't knowledge, but proper
application of the principles. You keep missing the boat.

Oops, forgot.. it sunk.

So did this thread. I know you still won't get it (and now it's spun
off into a "deep philosophical discussion" that has nothing to do with
the original issue either).

I'll leave you with a quote from one of my favorite philosophers
(Paul) that I think sums it up nicely. After that you can have the
last word.

"Why not say - as we are being slanderously reportad as saying and as
some claim that we say - "Let us do evil that good may result"? Their
condemnation is deserved".

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

SoCalMike wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

Well now THERE'S an air-tight prosecuter's strategy. "Ladies and
gentlemen of the jury, although we have no evidence at all that the
accused is guilty, it's just 'cuz he's such an evil genius that he's
hidden it all - so we assume you'll convict him without any further
input....". ;-)

sounds like what we dod to saddam regarding WMD's. we had no proof he
*didnt* have them, so we invaded.

It's clear now (at least if your media source doesn't bury it on the
bottom of page 45) that the intelligence wasn't at all ambiguous - at
least not that that made it to the both Bush and Blair (and others).
The bipartisan 9/11 commission found no hint of coersion from the
administration either - the assumption by all the intelligence
agencies involved (AND the UN weapons inspectors) was that there WERE
WMD in Iraq, and the reports used by Bush (and Blair) indicated as
much.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

(JP) wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..

Oops. I said I was just here to correct errors. There's one now.
Unless you can show any connection whatsoever from the prison in Iraq
to the office of the President, you're just blowing smoke.

Where does the buck stop?

At the Oval Office, but that's not to say that he's personally
responsible for every misdeed of the millions of people who work for
him. It's his responsibility to see that justice is done, and it IS
being done.

There are memoranda that implicate the SECDEF is this thing.

I haven't seen them. I've seen memos where he REFUSES to allow his
people to use methods outside the Geneva Convention, and those that
are described in the memo you describe below. Perhaps you can be
specific, if there is a "smoking gun" that I've missed (and the
media's missed, since it would be on the front page of every
left-leaning paper in the world if it existed).

By not
demanding Rumsfeld's immediate resignation, Bush has made himself an
accessory after the fact, if nothing else. Throw in the memo to
Alberto Gonzalez (Counsel to the President) narrowing the definition
of torture in a way that would allow many of the abuses at Abu Ghraib,
and I think that you do have a connection to the Office of the
President.

Hardly. The memo describes the legality of certain issues relative to
the detainees. It describes the legal limits, which (as I mention
above) were not authorized by the SECDEF.

Note that the definition of "Office of the President" is
not the physical Oval Office, it is basically the White House staff
that answers immediately to Bush, and certainly includes the White
House Counsel.

Understood - but there's still no evidence that anyone in the military
was authorized to do what they did in Iraq.

So we know that he failed to act against Rumsfeld, and that his chief
counsel was corresponding with DOJ regarding the definition of
torture.

So? If you were in his position, and you were responsible for getting
information from the detainees, wouldn't you want to know what was and
wasn't legal?

If the buck doesn't stop in the Oval Office on this issue, when would
Bush ever be responsible for *anything* negative that happens in his
administration? Nevermind, I know the answer- never.

You may think that's my position - far from it. If there was any
evidence pointing at the fact that the prison abuse was orchestrated
from the administration it would be different. Would it be safe to
say that many among the partisan feel that *anything* negative that
happens is automatically the fault of the Oval Office? I think so.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
(Jonesy) wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..

http://jibjab.com/thisland.html

Unfortunately, these guys are getting slammed with hits. I saw it
before the website got blasted so hard you can't get to the thing.
It's damn funny.

It got me thinking (I know that's hard for Jonesy to believe...)

I realize that you believe you are thinking. In reality, you are just
parroting conservative commentators who also buy into the propaganda.

Hmmmm... you sound just like Rush Limbaugh (substitute "liberal" for
"conservative" of course). Go figger.

Another "fact" that you have wrong.

Of course, I don't hold you quite as responsible since there are so
many more liberal commentators on the networks to listen to.

Another "fact" that isn't.

If I thought for a minute that you had any substantial criticism of
the way conservatives go about things, I'd have more respect for your
views. (As if my respect means anything to you.)

I do have criticisms, but around here it's like flipping matches in
the middle of the great Chicago fire

How odd, then, that I haven't heard one. You'd have think I would
have remembered that you had any substantial criticism of the Shrub
and his policies. Or maybe it's like Michael Savage - he bashes Bush
for not being conservative enough. LOL.
--
Jonesy

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
(Jonesy) wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
(Jonesy) wrote:

By
defining acts based on the outcome, the morality of those acts
suddenly becomes...

Relative.

Ding ding ding... there's the error bell again (two for two - you
gotta be more careful, Jonesy).

Just because you don't understand philosophy and logic does not mean I
made a mistake.

I understand both - but am driven by reality and pragmatism even more.

This is the fundemental basis of utilitarianism. Thus taking an
absolutist moral stand is quite difficult - you can't have both,
because they are mutually exclusive.

So far I have not seen you show even a glimmer of understanding about
the difference between the two. You switch as suits your argument,
just like most conservatives.

Number one - no one (other than you) defined the morality of the
actions in the Iraqi prison as based on the outcome.

As I said, you need to read some philosophy to understand the
principles upon which I speak. I understand completely that such
high-level ideas baffle the common conservative.

Nice dodge.

It's not a dodge, it's a direct commentary on your lack of
understanding. *You* were the one qualifying torture by attempting to
put good spin on it.

So, let's just get down to it:

When is torture justified?

Here's a refresher - by hoping for a good outcome, one is attempting
to mitigate the immorality of the act that produced the outcome. The
two things cannot be logically separated. *You* are the one who is
trying to paint it smaller or less significant than it really is.

Another dodge. You keep trying to tie my opinion of the prison abuse
to the output. There is nothing wrong with hoping that some good will
spring from a bad/evil/unpleasant action - in fact, I'd call it
"optimism" (something you should probably study as well).

"Optimism" is not a philosophy. And when it comes to world affairs,
optimism gets pounded into the ground by reality. Didn't you say you
were a pragmatist?

Under an absolute moral philosophy, *no* good can come from a bad act.
Under utilitarian philosophy, it can. Picking one over the other to
merely suit your argument is intellectual dishonesty.

I'll ask again: when is torture justified?

Here's why you're wrong...

Except that now you go on to make a crappy analogy of a UTILITARIAN
argument. I am sorry that you can't understand the concepts. It
makes discussion tedious.

You have no idea HOW tedious this discussion is. You've been going on
for pages and pages about an off-the-cuff statement that I hoped at
least they got some decent info out of the prison abuse. Get over it.

I go off because it reveals a mindset: Arabs are "lesser people."
Info is precious, so any means to get it is acceptable. Then, when
cornered, you flip-flop like a certain Presidential candidate.

Hoping that good comes from a bad act is justifying the act, even if
you cannot (or will not) see it. But it matters not - you have
declaimed yourself as a utilitarian, so I guess we only differ in the
degree of utility that we see in the torture of prisoners. And to the
degree in which it may or may not extend up the chain of command.

Say a terrorist sinks a ship. Bad thing, right?

I dunno - who does the ship belong to?

It was yours.

Was I on it?

It makes a great reef for the fish. Good thing, right?

Was the intent to make a reef for fish? No? Then how is the analogy
relevant? An unintended good outcome is called serendipity. And in
my world, fish humans.

It's a direct result of the evil action.

But not the intended result. Serendipity cannot be controlled, and
this example is in no way analogous. A rabbit trail, if you will.

And getting info from those
prisoners was not an "unintended good outcome" it was the "intended
good outcome".

Of course it was. Which justifies the acts in your mind. Got it.

That doesn't make the actions used any more moral or
acceptable.

Except that good info came out, and that's what matters.

Except in
your tortured world, it's still a bad thing.

For the people on the ship, yup. I don't care much about fish, except
for dinner.

You should go see "Dodge Ball" - you'd relate.

Since your analogy isn't really worth anything, I'd say I gave it more
than it deserved.

Even the fish know
better.

For you to use this as an analogy is even more silly than the previous
bicycle/car analogy.

How about Nero burning Rome? Pure evil intent. But the classic Rome
we know sprang from the ashes and totally rejuvanated the city. Same
for Chicago (though I'm not sure I can ascribe evil intent to a cow).

So these acts are justified, due to good outcomes? Neither was the
intended outcome, thus do not qualify as analogies. I'm very sorry
you cannot grasp this salient fact.

Read up on absolute morality vs. utilitarianism. Immanuel Kant, John
Stuart Mill, and throw in a little St. Matthew, just for kicks.

I have "read up on it" - the issue here isn't knowledge, but proper
application of the principles.

Either you are very poor at communicating your understanding of the
principles, or you actually have not read any of the above.

Not even J.S. Mill would attempt to mitigate torture. But as long as
your guy does it, it's OK.

So did this thread. I know you still won't get it (and now it's spun
off into a "deep philosophical discussion" that has nothing to do with
the original issue either).

Who's missing the boat now? Since you seem to not understand the
important difference between utilitarianism and categorical
imperative, it's quite relevant to your comments. It's an
illustration of your continued attempts to "have it both ways."

I'll leave you with a quote from one of my favorite philosophers
(Paul) that I think sums it up nicely. After that you can have the
last word.

"Why not say - as we are being slanderously reportad as saying and as
some claim that we say - "Let us do evil that good may result"? Their
condemnation is deserved".

I'm am baffled as to why you would again prove my point for me. Stand
up and condemn evil, Mark. Without reservation, mitigation or
defense. Say that if the evil goes high, that those folks should be
punished, up to and including cabinet members and even the CinC
himself. Your wishy-washiness is why these threads continue on and on
and on...
--
Jonesy

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
(Jonesy) wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..

Unless you can show any connection whatsoever from the prison in Iraq
to the office of the President, you're just blowing smoke.

DoJ memo, Mark.

You can do better than that - am I supposed to know about every DoJ
memo written in the last four years?

You wear your intellectual dishonesty like a badge of honor. Karl
Rove must be very proud.

Here's the hint: the memo is what I consider a potential connection
to the President. If it was the only thing, it might not be at all
compelling. Interesting, but not compelling.
--
Jonesy

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
Understood - but there's still no evidence that anyone in the military
was authorized to do what they did in Iraq.

Ridiculous lie. There most certainly is evidence.

You may think that's my position - far from it. If there was any
evidence pointing at the fact that the prison abuse was orchestrated
from the administration it would be different. Would it be safe to
say that many among the partisan feel that *anything* negative that
happens is automatically the fault of the Oval Office? I think so.

You said "any connection whatsoever from the prison in Iraq
to the office of the President". Now you're basically spending an
entire post telling us how none of the actual connections count or
even don't exist.

But, yes, I pretty well hold Bush responsible for all the tragedy that
has befallen this country since he took office. He failed to stop it,
and then after it happened he failed to do anything meaningful about
it, and in fact made it worse. And if you can believe what the Bush
administration says, there's more to come.

JP