Berkeley to marines: "uninvited and unwelcome intruders"

Parent Cafe
81

<p>LaxAttack: While slippery slope arguments are sort of weak, they do in fact contain a kernel of a legitimate argumentative point.</p>

<p>For example, would you consider it acceptable to make a terrorist watch you execute other terrorists until he talked? What about executing his friends and family? Where do we draw the line of “I’ll do it as long as I save American lives”?</p>

<p>Personally, I (and most legal scholars, people who have been tortured, etc.) draw it at “I will draw the line where I no longer consider what we are doing to be acceptable if done to me”. The Kantian categorical imperative, as it were. Where do you draw the line?</p>

82

<p>“Have you taken a class on argumentative rhetoric? The slippery slope technique is never accepted as a logical form of rhetoric. The only time you see it used is next to continuum fallacy…it’s just flat out wrong. Sorry.”</p>

<p>No, as a matter of fact, I learned arguing from my mother. And she remains a very argumentative woman.</p>

<p>“At what point do you say that certain morals, in a certain sense, need to be trumped in order for lives to be saved. Is it one life? 100? 1,000? 10 million?”</p>

<p>Hmmmm, your argumentative approach sounds suspiciously like the same approach you just criticized. No, let me rephrase that; it’s exactly the same approach. But then, of course, it’s your “slippery slope” analogy; I suppose that makes it acceptable.</p>

<p>So, I guess that means you don’t have to have a theoretical rhetorical debate background to see the obvious.</p>

83

<p>

</p>

<p>If this is the question then I would consider waterboarding acceptable but more violent, permanent methods unacceptable.</p>

84

<p>

</p>

<p>My argument is actually completely different. Do you even know what a slippery slope is?</p>

85

<p>

</p>

<p>So, let’s drive the recruiting office away from a city with the top public university in the country and put it where the population is less educated…okaaay…</p>

86

<p>LaxAttack: Would you then consider it an acceptable part of war if a foreign power (or unaffiliated foreign enemy organization) were to waterboard American soldiers as part of interrogation? Or would you consider it a war crime? This is the crux of the issue.</p>

87

<p>“Do you even know what a slippery slope is?”</p>

<p>Do you know what a rhetorical question is, or only how to ask them?</p>

88

<p>

</p>

<p>I would love it if that’s all Americans who were captured had to endure in Iraq. Unfortunately they are shot/beheaded instead. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Nonresponsive to my question, but I’m too tired to argue anymore, I’m going to nap</p>

89

<p>First hit:</p>

<p>[ABC</a> News: CIA’s Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described](<a href=“CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described - ABC News”>CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described - ABC News)</p>

<p>The techniques are controversial among experienced intelligence agency and military interrogators. Many feel that a confession obtained this way is an unreliable tool. Two experienced officers have told ABC that there is little to be gained by these techniques that could not be more effectively gained by a methodical, careful, psychologically based interrogation. According to a classified report prepared by the CIA Inspector General John Helgerwon and issued in 2004, the techniques “appeared to constitute cruel, and degrading treatment under the (Geneva) convention,” the New York Times reported on Nov. 9, 2005.</p>

<p>It is “bad interrogation. I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture’s bad enough,” said former CIA officer Bob Baer.</p>

<p>Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer and a deputy director of the State Department’s office of counterterrorism, recently wrote in the Los Angeles Times, “What real CIA field officers know firsthand is that it is better to build a relationship of trust … than to extract quick confessions through tactics such as those used by the Nazis and the Soviets.”</p>

<p>One argument in favor of their use: time. In the early days of al Qaeda captures, it was hoped that speeding confessions would result in the development of important operational knowledge in a timely fashion.</p>

<p>However, ABC News was told that at least three CIA officers declined to be trained in the techniques before a cadre of 14 were selected to use them on a dozen top al Qaeda suspects in order to obtain critical information. In at least one instance, ABC News was told that the techniques led to questionable information aimed at pleasing the interrogators and that this information had a significant impact on U.S. actions in Iraq.</p>

<p>According to CIA sources, Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi, after two weeks of enhanced interrogation, made statements that were designed to tell the interrogators what they wanted to hear. Sources say Al Libbi had been subjected to each of the progressively harsher techniques in turn and finally broke after being water boarded and then left to stand naked in his cold cell overnight where he was doused with cold water at regular intervals.</p>

<p>His statements became part of the basis for the Bush administration claims that Iraq trained al Qaeda members to use biochemical weapons. Sources tell ABC that it was later established that al Libbi had no knowledge of such training or weapons and fabricated the statements because he was terrified of further harsh treatment."</p>

90

<p>“My argument is actually completely different. Do you even know what a slippery slope is?”</p>

<p>So, do the words “slippery slope” actually have to be used in the argument for you to recognize the approach?</p>

<p>“Nonresponsive to my question, but I’m too tired to argue anymore, I’m going to nap”</p>

<p>They all say that when they’ve been thrashed about a bit.</p>

91

<p>“Do you have a link to said drownings?”</p>

<p>I wouldn’t have written it if I hadn’t. But this is the last time I’m going to be taking up your slack LaxAttack09. Really, you should know this if you’re going to make an effective argument:</p>

<p>[Media</a> Matters - NRO’s Murdock: “Waterboarding is something of which every American should be proud”](<a href=“http://mediamatters.org/items/200711050006]Media”>http://mediamatters.org/items/200711050006)</p>

<p>Contrary to Murdock’s assertions, Allen S. Keller, M.D., director of the Bellevue Hospital Center/New York University Program for Survivors of Torture, said in written testimony to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: “To think that abusive methods, including the enhanced interrogation techniques [in which Keller included waterboarding], are harmless psychological ploys is contradictory to well established medical knowledge and clinical experience. These methods are intended to break the prisoners down, to terrify them and cause harm to their psyche, and in so doing result in lasting harmful health consequences.” He said of waterboarding specifically, “Long term effects include panic attacks, depression and PTSD [post traumatic stress disorder],” and said it poses a “real risk of death.”</p>

<p>“There is a real risk of death from actually drowning or suffering a heart attack or damage to the lungs from inhalation of water.”</p>

92

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, that’s a very weak way to define it. Using that logic we should never hold a terrorist in prison or make him eat lima beans because I wouldn’t want those things to happen to me. However, statements like this and others certainly makes me very pessimistic about the future. With all three viable candidates taking similarly weak positions on protecting this country, the liklihood of additional attacks during the next administration is very high.</p>

<p>One thing that is absolutely certain in my mind is that there is a level of attack that will cause the vast majority of this country to say that waterboarding is an absolute necessity to protect the country. The pity is that it may have to happen first before people actually come to that too-late conclusion.</p>

93

<p>Sure am glad this topic totally spun way out of control.</p>

<p>Let Berkeley try to kick out the Marines. Let them protest. Let the bill pass that will remove Federal Funding from many city programs. Sounds good to me :)</p>

94

<p>

No, that is NOT the crux of the issue. There is a big, huge, enormous difference between a legal combatant (i.e., US soldier) and a terrorist. Likewise, there is a big, huge enormous difference between wanton waterboarding of all captured combatant (legal or illegal) and selectively waterboarding top leaders who are believed to have knowledge of future attacks against civillian targets.</p>

95

<p>“Personally, I (and most legal scholars, people who have been tortured, etc.) draw it at “I will draw the line where I no longer consider what we are doing to be acceptable if done to me”. The Kantian categorical imperative, as it were.”</p>

<p>You misunderstand Kant’s Categorical Imperative.</p>

96

<p>“Likewise, there is a big, huge enormous difference between wanton waterboarding of all captured combatant (legal or illegal) and selectively waterboarding top leaders who are believed to have knowledge of future attacks against civillian targets.”</p>

<p>So if the Muslim fundamentalists waterboarded Bush, that would be OK ?
Or the top US generals ?
Or all senior US military officers ?</p>

<p>Your argument for torture is full of holes.</p>

97

<p>So back to the topic:</p>

<p>“Let Berkeley try to kick out the Marines.” That’s not possible.</p>

<p>“Let them protest.” Of course, it’s their constitutional right.</p>

<p>“Let the bill pass that will remove Federal Funding from many city programs.” This one is a bit sticky since it would be punishing all of the citizens of Berkeley for a worthless and impotent political statement by a few. Furthermore, doesn’t federal funding come from the tax payers, and aren’t the residents of Berkeley tax payers. Shouldn’t the tax payers have something to say about how their taxes are spent whether or not citizens from other cities and states agree or not.</p>

98

<p>

</p>

<p>The feds have already established the precedent of using federal funds to blackmail local governments into doing what they want. Two examples are educational funding and highway construction money. One of my many reasons to fund and manage government services at the lowest possible level.</p>

<p>So, blackmailing Berkeley should be child’s play compared to what they do to school boards, state boards of education, and state highway departments.</p>

99

<p>“The feds have already established the precedent of using federal funds to blackmail local governments into doing what they want.”</p>

<p>Yeah, that rankles more than a few folks.</p>

100

<p>

</p>

<p>I believe said taxpayers had to vote the council into office. Also said taxpayers had to vote their Senators and Representatives into office. They had their say.</p>