what happens when we become the thing we loathe?

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/22/06 at 9:35am

i've been thinking about this lately and wondered what others thought. i've noticed a tendency in people who are vehemently passionate in their loathing of a particular idea, person or group and the tactics used by said group to adopt those same tactics. when it's pointed out that they are doing the same things they loathe in others they seem unwilling to admit it, unable to see it, or pass it off as acceptable because the people they loathe do it too.

i'm not singling out any particular person and see this trend as much more widespread than the antics of some posters on a message board. it's not particular to any specific subject or group either. it happens in sports, business, politics, fashion, school...everywhere.

is it acceptable or even logical to adopt the very same tactics you decry as unfair or nefarious when used against an idea, person or group you support to attack those who practice those ways? or does it demean the very idea, person or group (and indeed yourself) that you purport to defend when you do so?

[RobbO]

Posted: 6/22/06 at 9:37am

is this because i said i didn't like "small wonder" ?

[JerseyGirl2]

Posted: 6/22/06 at 9:41am

And yet, you are a small wonder?

[shameless]

Posted: 6/22/06 at 9:51am

He sure is!!!

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/22/06 at 9:59am

Like when the United States government decided to toss aside the Geneva Conventions because "the only way to deal with torturers is to torture them."
==

Washington Post, Wednesday, October 26, 2005:

VICE PRESIDENT Cheney is aggressively pursuing an initiative that may be unprecedented for an elected official of the executive branch: He is proposing that Congress legally authorize human rights abuses by Americans. "Cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment of prisoners is banned by an international treaty negotiated by the Reagan administration and ratified by the United States. The State Department annually issues a report criticizing other governments for violating it. Now Mr. Cheney is asking Congress to approve legal language that would allow the CIA to commit such abuses against foreign prisoners it is holding abroad. In other words, this vice president has become an open advocate of torture.

Updated On: 6/22/06 at 09:59 AM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/22/06 at 10:11am

i point you to the conditions in the geneva convention that define those protected under its auspices:

article 4

a. prisoners of war, in the sense of the present convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) that of carrying arms openly;

(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the detaining power.

4. persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

b. the following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present convention:

1. persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. the persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent powers on their territory and whom these powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these powers may choose to give and with the exception of articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent power concerned, those articles concerning the protecting power. where such diplomatic relations exist, the parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a protecting power as provided in the present convention, without prejudice to the functions which these parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

c. this article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in article 33 of the present convention.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 6/22/06 at 10:17am

I think papa the issue is when one side uses tactics that are offensive, but successful, what does the other side do?

By adopting the tactics of the opposition, do you become the very thing you despise, or is it an "ends justify the means" argument, where you can convince yourself it is OK because you are pursuing a higher cause.

I don't think there is an easy answer to this question. And, I am not sure what standing on principle does for you when you see many things you hold important being compromised or taken away.

I try not to adopt the tactics of those I find offensive, but sometimes it is very tempting because many those you are trying to persuade seem far more willing to respond to the extremes than engage in thoughtful debate and actual consider the consequences of what is going on. (this is a generalization and is not directed at anyone in particular on this board).

It is the whole Pogo question . . . we have seen the enemy, and he is us.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/22/06 at 10:20am

and regardless of your sense of moral equivalence and the glee with which you malign the united states military, water-boarding, lack of air conditioning, sleep deprivation, forced panty wearing and the other outrages alleged are not the equivalent of the use of non-combatants as human shields, the cutting off of heads of both military and civilians, the kidnapping of civilians, the widespread use of suicide bombs to decimate non-combatants or the concealment of explosives within the still living body of soldiers by use of mutilation. it's not the same and for you to argue that it is reveals only your own pathological loathing of the president and your willingness to smear members of the military as a means to justify your own misguided sentiments.

Updated On: 6/22/06 at 10:20 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/22/06 at 10:24am

Maybe you didn't hear, but 3 weeks ago the Pentagon removed Article 3 (not 4) of the Geneva Convention, which explicitly bans "humiliating and degrading treatment," from the Army Manual.

When Cheney and Rumsfeld did that, did the United States become the thing we loathe?

You tell me.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 6/22/06 at 10:24am

I usually end up sleeping with people I loathe.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/22/06 at 10:26am

my point stands, humiliating and degrading is different than barbaric and inhumane, and yet you continue to try to tie them together as if one equals the other. it's disgusting and you should be ashmed of yourself.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/22/06 at 10:28am

Here's one of the many articles on the deletion of Article 3 from the Army Manual, this one from the Washington Post.

snippet:

===

Army Manual to Skip Geneva Detainee Rule
The Pentagon's move to omit a ban on prisoner humiliation from the basic guide to soldier conduct faces strong State Dept. opposition.
By Julian E. Barnes, Times Staff Writer
June 5, 2006

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has decided to omit from new detainee policies a key tenet of the Geneva Convention that explicitly bans "humiliating and degrading treatment," according to knowledgeable military officials, a step that would mark a further, potentially permanent, shift away from strict adherence to international human rights standards.

The decision could culminate a lengthy debate within the Defense Department but will not become final until the Pentagon makes new guidelines public, a step that has been delayed. However, the State Department fiercely opposes the military's decision to exclude Geneva Convention protections and has been pushing for the Pentagon and White House to reconsider, the Defense Department officials acknowledged.

For more than a year, the Pentagon has been redrawing its policies on detainees, and intends to issue a new Army Field Manual on interrogation, which, along with accompanying directives, represents core instructions to U.S. soldiers worldwide.

The process has been beset by debate and controversy, and the decision to omit Geneva protections from a principal directive comes at a time of growing worldwide criticism of U.S. detention practices and the conduct of American forces in Iraq....

That provision — known as a "common" article because it is part of each of the four Geneva pacts approved in 1949 — bans torture and cruel treatment. Unlike other Geneva provisions, Article 3 covers all detainees — whether they are held as unlawful combatants or traditional prisoners of war. The protections for detainees in Article 3 go beyond the McCain amendment by specifically prohibiting humiliation, treatment that falls short of cruelty or torture.

The move to restore U.S. adherence to Article 3 was opposed by officials from Vice President Dick Cheney's office and by the Pentagon's intelligence arm, government sources said. David S. Addington, Cheney's chief of staff, and Stephen A. Cambone, Defense undersecretary for intelligence, said it would restrict the United States' ability to question detainees.

The Pentagon tried to satisfy some of the military lawyers' concerns by including some protections of Article 3 in the new policy, most notably a ban on inhumane treatment, but refused to embrace the actual Geneva standard in the directive it planned to issue.

The military lawyers, known as judge advocates general, or JAGs, have concluded that they will have to wait for a new administration before mounting another push to link Pentagon policy to the standards of Geneva.

"The JAGs came to the conclusion that this was the best they can get," said one participant familiar with the Defense Department debate who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the protracted controversy. "But it was a massive mistake to have withdrawn from Geneva. By backing away, you weaken the proposition that this is the baseline provision that is binding to all nations."

Derek P. Jinks, an assistant professor at the University of Texas School of Law and the author of a forthcoming book on Geneva called "The Rules of War," said the decision to remove the Geneva reference from the directive showed the administration still intended to push the envelope on interrogation.

"We are walking the line on the prohibition on cruel treatment," Jinks said. "But are we really in search of the boundary between the cruel and the acceptable?"

The military has long applied Article 3 to conflicts — including civil wars — using it as a minimum standard of conduct, even during peacekeeping operations. The old version of the U.S. directive on detainees says the military will "comply with the principles, spirit and intent" of the Geneva Convention....

In his February 2002 order, Bush wrote that he determined that "Common Article 3 of Geneva does not apply to either Al Qaeda or Taliban detainees, because, among other reasons, the relevant conflicts are international in scope and Common Article 3 applies only to 'armed conflict not of an international character.' "

Some legal scholars say Bush's interpretation is far too narrow. Article 3 was intended to apply to all wars as a sort of minimum set of standards, and that is how Geneva is customarily interpreted, they say.

But top administration officials contend that after the Sept. 11 attacks, old customs do not apply, especially to a fight against terrorists or insurgents who never play by the rules.

"The overall thinking," said the participant familiar with the defense debate, "is that they need the flexibility to apply cruel techniques if military necessity requires it."
Army Manual to Skip Geneva Detainee Rule

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/22/06 at 10:36am

And stop saying "Y'oughta be ashamed of y'self"--that's a childish way to conduct a supposedly adult discussion.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/22/06 at 10:37am

you can cut and paste until you fingers are numb. the most extreme extreme interrogation techniques used by the american military are not equivalent morally or physically to brutality practiced daily by the islamists. period. by continuing to attempt to tie them together and make them two sides of the same coin you merely show what craven depths you are willing to sink to try to paint this admninistration in an unpleasant light.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/22/06 at 10:41am

I have not attacked you personally in months and months (since I agreed to end the practice), yet you continue the ad hominem name-calling against me ("Craven!") on a many-times-daily basis.

It's tiresome and you should stop it already.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 6/22/06 at 10:41am

So, when did we start comparing what was morally right based upon the brutal practice of extremists?

Are we saying that as long as we are one peg above the worst, we are OK?

We are better than that.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/22/06 at 10:44am

i understand that your linguistic skills are sub-par at best, pj, but, in this case craven modifies the word depths. is that your new name? depths?

[thirdrowcenter]

Posted: 6/22/06 at 10:45am

The fact that beheadings are not viewed with horror is bizarre and depressing to me. Condemn our soldiers but disregard the savage enemy. I am just not of that mindset.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/22/06 at 10:50am

More personal attacks. Why don't you just stop?

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/22/06 at 11:05am

wah! mom, he's being mean to me!

ywiw, i agree that it's a slippery slope, but look at your own post. personally, i have no problem with the tactics used by our military to elicit information because i know that regardless of how we treat prisoners, ours will brutalized and that this is war, not prison.

i think rather than specifically looking at the tactics used, people are hung up on the word torture. the word torture brings about scenes of hideous violence being perpetrated on people. that's simply not what we are doing. being forced to listen to madonna at a high volume is not the same as having your fingers broken one at a time, knuckle by knuckle.

i don't think that the coercive methods used by the united states are torture under any definition i would use nor do i feel that we are demeaned as a people by their use.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/22/06 at 11:14am

I really don't care if you're mean to me or not. But it bogs down these threads and turns other posters off. You really should just stop.

Next time, why don't you just say "I don't believe our practices are torture," rather than "it's disgusting and you should be ashmed of yourself" or "you merely show what craven depths you are willing to sink" or "wah! mom, he's being mean to me!" or "your own pathological loathing of the president and your willingness to smear members of the military."

It's tiresome.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/22/06 at 11:20am

because i enjoy those phrases much more and they apply directly to the discussion. why don't you avoid speaking for other posters? you're just you, y'know, unless you are guilty of the same excesses of which you accuse others so often and have multiple board names. no? then it's just you.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/22/06 at 11:22am

I can honestly say I do not have multiple board names. Can you say the same?

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/22/06 at 11:24am

yep. there's only one me. i have enough trouble keeping up with one name, i couldn't imagine having more. who else do you think i am?

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 6/22/06 at 12:22pm

Papa, first, the reliablity of the data extracted via these techniques make this whole discussion moot.

Second, there are some techniques, such as sleep depravation and sound stresses that I can condone. But waterboarding, forcing drugs down detainees throats, and other actions taken in the name of freedom make me a wee bit ill.

And, the fact that very few in power have taken responsibility for the consequences of these decisions, and left low-ranking (often time reservists) to take all of the punishment when a military court finds them objectionable, just one more thing to add to the lack of accoutability demonstrated by Bush et al.