Believe Me, It's Torture

Normally I don't post on Sunday. It is my Sabbath. But I am up late on too much wine. Don't you love that hypocrisy?

I'm with Eells. I have said that I am a runner. I am also a woman. When I was 17 I believed that everyone should be 'nice' to one another. Would have opposed water boarding, hands down. And then life happened. And now I run with a knife. And I would use in a second. And I wouldn't call 911 until someone stopped breathing.

I don't say that to sound tough. I say it calmly. And I feel fine with it.

If you come to play—come ready for the consequences.

Isn't there a small part of all us that is glad that we, as a country, mean business?

One small caveat—it is sad when it is an innocent. . .

But that's part of war.

The above excerpt from VF should be attributed to its author, Christopher Hitchens.

The waterboarding technique has been lurking through the ages, and the recent media attention to it belies the full extent to which it has been invoked in nearly every culture in the context of conflict. I seem to recall brouhahas of latter decades in which American law enforcement officers have used it on arrestees.

As a physician, I have a certain morbid curiosity about the method. Although the upshot of the method is its brutality without leaving any residual marks behind, it's difficult for me to believe that serious clinical complications have never resulted from it (ie, aspiration pneumonia, strokes from severe increases in intracranial pressure). Moreover, I've never understood the relevance of the fact that the technique has the victim lie with legs elevated above head (what the board in waterboarding is for), in the so-called Trendelenburg position.

That Hitchens, once a member of the muscular Left but one who has mysteriously cast his lot in favor of the Iraq war and appurtenant military efforts, would want to pursue a first-hand exposition of the technique puzzles me.

Eells and Missive:  read "Generation Kill", a book about a Marine Recon unit in the 2003 unprovoked war of aggression on Iraq.  See how you feel about the killing of innocent people done in your name. No one is calling 911 for these people.

Acting like a paranoid bully on the world stage (now a role emulated by Russia) is not a substitute for a determined effort to track down and arrest terrorist criminals...in cooperation with other democratic countries.  Oh wait!  George pissed all of them off!  Never mind.  

Miss Ive - A woman with a knife can be easily disarmed. I would highly recommend a concealed carry weapons class, and a small calibre handgun, lightweight and easily concealed. There are a myriad to choose from. It may not kill your opponent outright, but will certainly get him off your back.

Mark Swaim - The article by Mr Hutchins states in the Contract of Indemnification that waterboarding can indeed produce serious and permanent injuries, physical, emotional, and psychological. And even death resulting from injuries to the respiratory and neurological system. The trendelenburg position during the waterboarding, I would assume, further disorients the one being "interrogated" and allows the water to drain down into the nares. I also assume that Mr Hutchins motivation to experience first hand exposure to the technique of waterboarding would allow him to expound on the subject with greater credibility than most.

Jeremiah - Who wouldn't act like a paranoid bully after being sucker punched by a group of brainwashed religious extremists in the middle of their most beloved city?

To refer to waterboarding as anything less than torture is an understatement that is unwarranted by the facts. Did you see the video? It's self evident. It's definitely torture. Information obtained through torture is unreliable. We don't need it. We are better equipped, and better trained and the use of information extracted from torture is more of a liability than an asset. Mr Hitchens couldn't even remember what he said at all. I personally don't want military decisions made based on information extracted from torture.

Can we not stand on what little moral high ground that we have left and leave the torturing out of our affairs?

Warriors fight, they don't torture. Not the same at all. Torturers are the bad monkeys, cowards we want to so not be like. We have lost whatever shred of moral high ground we had before President Failure stole his first election, which is why Putin laughs at Rice and Bush.

Torture DOESN'T WORK, and they don't document the Acute Respiratory Failure and aspiration pneumonias secondary to hyper lavage of an unprotected airway. There is never any excuse for torture-it's just cruelty, and we should not be about that.

The Roman Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus states "Therefore, he who wishes peace, should prepare war; he who desires victory, should carefully train his soldiers; he who wants favorable results, should fight relying on skill, not on chance." Sounds right to me...

TR said speak softly and carry a big stick, his Monroe Doctrine corollary derived from an old West African proverb. We've lost our way.

I can't find any quotes rationalizing gratuitous torture. That's a good thing, I think.

No way would I run with a knife-you might poke your eye out, Missy! Try a Star nine millimeter-palm size, adequate stopping power, my choice when I need to be comfortable. I have a 22 mag derringer I like for my smaller evening purses-very elegant, pearl handles. I learned to shoot when I was ten, but I never hunted-I have no desire to kill any animal unless it threatens me or my family. Then the tigress comes forth, and only one story will be told. I recommend In The Gravest Extreme, by Massad Ayoob-sensible advice for killing people in self defense, the only reason to jerk iron IMO.

Long before Hitchens little experiment, Malcolm W. Nance, a former Navy SERE instructor, testified before a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee that waterboarding "is torture and should be banned." In doing so, he echoed the sentiments he expressed in Small Wars Journal on October 31, 2007.

As a former Master Instructor and Chief of Training at the US Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School (SERE) in San Diego, California I know the waterboard personally and intimately. SERE staff were required undergo the waterboard at its fullest. I was no exception. I have personally led, witnessed and supervised waterboarding of hundreds of people. It has been reported that both the Army and Navy SERE school's interrogation manuals were used to form the interrogation techniques used by the US army and the CIA for its terror suspects. What was not mentioned in most articles was that SERE was designed to show how an evil totalitarian, enemy would use torture at the slightest whim. If this is the case, then waterboarding is unquestionably being used as torture technique.

Over the years preceding Nance's testimony, waterboarding has received wholehearted endorsements from Rush Limbaugh and Joe Scarborough. It has been made light of by Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade, and Bush's AG danced around the issue, refusing to comment on whether or not the practice is, in fact, illegal.

Perhaps they should consult a guy with these credentials:

Retiring as a master instructor at the US Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) School in Coronado, California he trained select Special Operations personnel at the Advanced Terrorism, Abduction and Hostage Survival school (ATAHS) in resisting torture and exploitation. In 1998 he created and led the official terrorism training team formed to simulate the Al Qaeda organization and its attacks.
On the morning of 9/11 he was a rescuer at the Pentagon crash site and participated in the investigation of the World Trade Center attacks.
In the Global War on Terrorism he served in Afghanistan where he conducted intelligence operations in Nangahar province (Jalalabad-Tora Bora) and year in Iraq as a security director at the headquarters of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad. There he studied the Iraqi resistance and Al Qaeda's involvement in the insurgency.
He is author of four books including:

The Terrorist Recognition Handbook- A Manual for Predicting and Identifying Terrorist Activities
The Terrorists of Iraq - The Lethal Tactics of the Iraqi Insurgents 2003-2005
Al Qaeda 3.0 "Combat and the Call" - The Terrorist Tactics of the Bin Laden Jihad
Terrorist Tactics - Organizations, Weapons, Operations and Strategies of Modern Political Violence Groups 1960-2005
He has a BA from New York State University's Excelsior College and speak five languages including Arabic, Pashto, French, Italian and Spanish. Today he is Director of Special Readiness Services International (SRSI) a Washington DC-based anti-terrorism/counter-terrorism consultancy supporting the intelligence community.

I'm guessing it was kind of hard for the Administration's many microphone myrmidons to "swiftboat" a guy with that kind of background.

It is quite common for law enforcement officers, as a capstone of their training in a non-lethal weapon (such as TASER or OC Spray), to have the weapon they are training with used on them. Perhaps we should hold politicians and pundits to the same standard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G2wZ5A2zRA

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/10/waterboarding-is-torture-perio/

Since nobody likes my film references, let me add this one for you, MissIve:

Starting Over, with Burt Reynolds and Jill Clayburgh and Candice Bergen

Watch for the walk from the bus stop.

  
...

Not having served, I wonder a lot about the distinction between killing, which is seen as an unfortunate byproduct of war, and torture, which is uniformly condemned, if not uniformly defined.  John McCain may not like torture, but I am glad he wasn't killed instead.

When we discuss the humanity and acceptability of certain practices, be it posting on the sabbath or torture or spying, let us recall Woodrow Wilson's dictum : "Gentlemen do not read each others' mail." 

What was the name of that guy who said "the times they are a-changin"?  I believe the usual rule is not to assume that your enemy is as civilized or high minded as you would like to be. You needn't be the first in the race to the bottom, but you probably shouldn't be surprised there is a race going on.

What I wonder about is why Mr. Hitchens found it necessary to say anything in "the most chilling  way [he could] find of stating the matter" or would admit to that thought process. What happened to the facts speaking for themselves?  How many of you would read on after an article said "Here is the most sensational and outlandish way I can describe this matter"?

To beat a dead horse (pun fully intended), I would like to slip in an addendum to yesterday's equine discussion.  Our home town newspaper had a whole section today devoted to an investigative report they did on the possible causes for the breakdown of thoroughbreds in races, prompted by the Derby breakdown of Eightbelles.  My ex-boss was largely quoted and the biggest place of potential cause lies with the in-breeding used in the industry.  A lot more finger pointing is in the article, but this one area is the most promenant.  Remember when I suggested this was the problem the Nat. Park Serv. was facing with the wild mustangs?

Now back to our regularly scheduled program... 

adendum to the adendum:  courier-journal.com/horse

Perhaps I'm a bit naive, and I do admit to not being as historically astute as I should be, but hey . . . when has that ever suppressed my opinion.

I would almost bet that the last war that was fought that could even remotely be thought of as noble, where both sides played by the same rules (sort of) probably took place on a vast battlefield, upon which warrior kings fought side-by-side with their armies.

It was expected that the king/leader/ruler/czar/president/head honcho/benevolent dictator/head cheese would be leading his countrymen, women and children into battle and they did. They did so for two reasons. One reason was the prevalence of nobility and responsibility; they knew the job was dangerous when they accepted it. The second reason, which is probably the more practical of the two, they knew that if they didn't, their loyal subjects would literally tear them into shreds.

Ah..... the good old days one might say, but you know what? I'll bet that each side had a torture room in the bottom of their castle with all manner of really nasty mechanical devices.

Don't get me wrong, Of course I believe that war really sucks and that torture, in any circumstances is horrific whether it be as an act of war or a back alley crime. It's as bad or worse than all of the body bags, lost limbs, chemical burns that violent conflict usually produces.

We have devolved a long way from the concept of a "level playing field" where battles were scheduled and fought until a winner was declared.

I don't believe that anyone "plays by the rules". We live in an age where our foes not only televise and broadcast the decapitation of tortured American citizens (wearing hoods no less to protect the innocent?) but they celebrate it. They race each other to claim responsibility for acts of terrorism so they can be credited and praised for it.

How can anyone involved in this type of struggle be expected to pull up short and consult their list of Geneva Convention "thou shalt nots".

I hate the violence, I despise the thought of torture, but I cannot in my heart fault our government for refusing to fight with one arm tied behind its back while it's enemies will stop at nothing to destroy us. How does one remain ethical against a foe that is only rational unto itself?

We need new answers and/or better questions for this to end.

Given that the subject matter today deals with when it is okay to break 'the rules' of fair play, I will break mine again regarding not posting on Sundays.

I have thought of you all and this subject throughout my day.

PeterLake, again, you have said so eloquently what I was attempting before! In the future, I will send you my notes, and you can shape them for me. Okay?

I am back to clarify my wine-induced, emotive response.

Olivia, first, I thank you for your concern regarding my 'knife running,' and can assure you that it is properly sheathed. Smile.

You have argued that torture is cowardly. And, truly, it can be. But I would argue that it is only cowardly when it is done in calm malice and with the intent of revenge.

I have debated on whether or not to share another's story, as it is not my own, but so perfectly illustrates the 'other' scenario of torture. So I will keep it brief.

My mother moved out of the woods when I was 19 and onto a lake—the kind where all houses are six inches apart. I lived with her that summer. Our neighbor was a jeweler. He was in his fifties and lived with his wife and teenage son. He was an ex-Marine.

One evening, while, six inches away, my mother and I sat with popcorn and a period flick, he and his wife pulled into their garage and shut the door behind them. Then both of their doors were opened simultaneously by armed men. They dragged them into the house. Their son was home. They bound my neighbor and his son and dragged them into their bedroom. They locked the door. My neighbor heard the garage door open and new that they were leaving with his wife. Can you even imagine his rage? Can you even imagine what he felt when his teenaged son's eyes pleaded silently that he DO SOMETHING? And he could not. And one armed man was left at the house to make sure he did not. I have imagined it. So many times.

I will not finish their story. But I ask you this, if he had gotten free from that room and gotten his hands on that gunman, (I will not use the word 'right' here, as in a situation such as this, what do 'rights' even mean?), but what would you EXPECT he would do to find out where the other two men had taken his wife? What? I know what I would do. And, Olivia, you have said that 'torture does not work.' Surely, it has. And it will again. And, before when I asserted that 'if you come to play—come ready for the consequences,' this gunman had come to play.

Olivia, please know that I so value your opinion, even when ours differ. And I am eager to hear your thoughts on this, genuinely.

When you said:

"I have no desire to kill any animal unless it threatens me or my family. Then the tigress comes forth, and only one story will be told."

My sincere question is this, if the only way to save your family required that you take a 'meandering route' to his end, wouldn't a tigress do even that?

I think the confusing part about this debate is that it is attempting to graft a logical debate over laws and civil rights onto what is basically a primal survival mechanism.

And that grays things, certainly.

I say again that torture does not work, and it debases us as a society. Therefore how can we argue in favor of any justification for degrading our ethics and tolerance for cruelty to the level of those we despise? We thereby become more like that which we revile, and look upon ourselves the same way we do these savages. It is an unhealthy practice which promotes decay. And it is WRONG.

Were we not so dependent upon foreign energy, we would have the option to leave, to distance ourselves from these hateful beings, and state our national aversion to such behaviour. We would eventually regain a semblance of the moral high ground which the world had previously granted us. It has been said by many wiser than I, and indeed by those benighted denizens themselves, that were we not there to focus fundamentalist hatred upon, they would carry out these acts one upon the other, as we do see even now. I fervently desire our absence from these areas of perpetual strife, and a redoubled focus on home defense in conjunction with a systematic strengthening of our military capabilities in all areas, rather than spreading our overworked soldiers so thinly, and so poorly equipped, that the most routine of sorties becomes too certainly mortal. Our so-called leaders-pusillanimous, vacillating, meretricious-might serve us better were they held accountable for the better regulation of national affairs such as financial oversight, the health and education of the citizenry, and energy independence. I feel in my soul that he path we walk now is WRONG.

Ultimately, I believe that we have other, better fish to fry than these poisonous pursuits in faroff lands. We can and should supply diplomacy, counsel, and the odd focused military intervention, such as we did so much more effectively under General Clark's direction in the Balkans (admittedly not perfect-strife seldom is-but we fulfilled the mission and lost not a single soldier). We can reorganize and improve our foreign intelligence-gathering systems. We can cajole, sanction, isolate, even bribe where necessary, far more effectively if we are not sapping our collective blood and treasure (a cliche, but apt, sure) in fruitless endeavours elsewhere.

I see so many empty suits and armchair soldiers daily celebrating their testosterone levels while the innocent are immolated along with the guilty. I recoil with disgust as they engage in imaginary pissing contests with terrorists, video warriors reveling in the sick reality television we provide by blowing stuff up real good in someone else's homeland while real soldiers come back maimed and disillusioned and often feeling betrayed by their country. Bullets and rockets fly, women and children cry, and it's all SO WRONG, as wrong as torture, and so many can't or won't see it. I fear for our future if we have lost (or worse, cast away) the ability to discern right from wrong, lost the will to speak up for propriety at home and abroad.

Another quote that may apply here is from Thomas Jefferson, a flawed but eloquent statesman, who said:

Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever . . . ."

He was speaking of slavery, but are we not enslaved when we study war while the majority of people living in poverty and sickness and ignorance (and they are discgracefully many, too many for such a prosperous nation) in our homeland are CHILDREN?

I vote no to torture in all cases. We are torturing ourselves, and it is futile.

Miss Ive, I am discussing our national conscience, as an attempt to stay on topic, which I am so bad at I know. As for your domestic scenario, we may wonder and project, but I have already stated my response to more intimate threats on the survival of myself and those I love. Death is too good and too easy for those sorts of bad guys. I regret to confess that I fear I might torture them slowly and with some pleasure in revenge, but as a nation we do not have to resort to such barbarism. We just don't...

The current debate might not even be relevant had we been guided by prudence and reserved our great national wrath for those most deserving of it. We would have done with Afghanistan by now, I hope (maybe not, but I think we could do better than the Russians) and bin Laden would be a dead rat in a hole if we could have stayed focused and not allowed our military to be used like a toy some rich kid got for Christmas-thank you Kurt Vonnegut.

This country was at least partially founded on the right to debate and disagree, and so I cherish and value highly all of your opinions, especially when we disagree. It's so stimulating! Uh-oh, I feel quotes coming on again-Oscar Wilde this time:

Ah! Don't say that you agree with me. When people agree with me I always feel that I must be wrong.

As long as war is regarded as wicked, it will always have its fascination. When it is looked upon as vulgar, it will cease to be popular.

The truth is rarely pure, and never simple.

A thing is not necessarily true because a man (or woman-Olivia) dies for it.

and...

We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and declare for Gandhi-he had some good ideas for bringing endurance to civility and speaking truth to power.

Now before I have to quote Dylan Thomas (somebody's boring me-I think it's me)-oops, too late, I'm belting up.

Olivia,

When Thomas Jefferson said, "Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever . . . .," why do you think he 'trembled?'

Don't you imagine it is because he understands that when an unbearable injustice has been done, the backlash, or return to 'justice,' is going to be 'messy?' Even torturous?

Have you read of the Stono Rebellion? The Nat Turner Rebellion? John Brown?

How many 'innocent,' white, southern children were killed in those 'returns to justice?'

I do not argue in favor of violence or torture. I argue that the pendulum of justice will always swing. And at its extreme poles, the unthinkable lies. And it is the very fear of those unthinkable acts that pushes us as a society to maintain its stasis. Does that make sense? Not, 'does it sound nice or ideal,' but does it sound true?

Certainly, torture is 'unjust.' Certainly. But justice cannot exist without injustice. They are binaries, completely dependent on each other.

Olivia!

I too am engaged by our debate and respect your well articulated and passionately felt argument.

So, I will push it further.

You have said this to me:

"Miss Ive, I am discussing our national conscience, as an attempt to stay on topic, which I am so bad at I know. As for your domestic scenario, we may wonder and project, but I have already stated my response to more intimate threats on the survival of myself and those I love. Death is too good and too easy for those sorts of bad guys. I regret to confess that I fear I might torture them slowly and with some pleasure in revenge, but as a nation we do not have to resort to such barbarism. We just don't..."

You discriminate between the familial unit and the nation. And now I have located our basic disagreement. I do not discriminate between the two.

I am eager to hear your argument in favor of the former. I genuinely am.

And I will tell you why I support the latter. If I did not think that the family is the basic unit of culture/nation. . .or even. . .world, I would not be so invested in it. And so I always proceed nationally as I would within my family.

And my family wars—often. And we do it well and quickly because we do not repress it. We know that it is part of life and that it, if done in the open and fairly, brings growth, too. And, frankly, I fear one that does not. I'm thinking of the 1950's right now. I'm thinking of what repressed volatility breeds. It's very dark.

I agree with Mr. Wilde, but only in part. Indeed we should cease to think of war a wicked. We should just know that it is part of life and do it in an open field, as PeterLake described in his previous post. And that is how it used to be done.

Do you ever wonder why war has become so incestuous and vile? Do ever think that it might have everything to do with the fact that we spend so much energy trying to deny that it 'should' exist rather than just putting up our sleeves and learning how to do it quickly and with less casualties? We would not NEED torture.

And I think this is where are arguments agree. You have said that the current debate might not be relevant if we had been "guided by prudence and reserved our great national wrath for those most deserving of it."

Here, here.

And so it is for this reason that I do not wish to continue the repression of war or its ugly faces, such as torture. I believe it is the very act of repression that creates these ugly offshoots. And I do agree, they ARE ugly. But to address the festering wound rather than the weapon (repression of war) that caused it, is, I humbly believe, only causing more puss.

Certainly it is not as black and white as I have described. And certainly all war is not 'inevitable' or, God forbid, 'noble.' Your other Wilde quote addresses that.

"A thing is not necessarily true because a man (or woman-Olivia) dies for it."

But, to some extent, strife will occur. And it will manifest itself in a fight. But if we walk into the fight with head held high rather than feeling that is innately 'evil,' ironically, it would become the 'clean' fight that you so desire. Wouldn't it?

Please tell me your thoughts.

Miss Ive, I believe TJ was concerned with his god's possible punishments for the nation's sins. i don't think he was considering that the nation would be tortured-that's something men of limited vision do.

For the rest of your statements-yes I've read of those terrible things, but they seem non sequiturs to this discussion-perhaps I'm missing some salient point. Certainly many innocents are harmed every day, but to posit that, ergo, there must be injustice, that it is somehow required, seems to me a bleak vision of our potential as a species.

To put forth a couple of examples that may oppugn your sanguine convictions, I feel that the proceedings at Nuremberg and those ongoing in Cambodia after Pol Pot teach us that the correction of unbearable injustice can be measured application of appropriate punishment. The quotidian atrocities of Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and an unknown (by the citizenry, and without our consent) number of other secret chambers of horrors sanctioned by this ethically challenged administration fall far short of that worthy paradigm.

I just think we can do better. I'm all for looking to the stars, but that's just me... 

Olivia,

I am absolutely for looking to the stars. I just also believe that if we do not periodically look back into our gutter to clean it of the crap that has accumulated, hands getting dirty in the process, then eventually our starry eyes will be covered in said crap.

And today, you and I have engaged in what I would call a fair fight. And if you had not fought so eloquently, brilliantly and fairly, I would not have engaged with you. Would have felt it 'beneath' me. As you feel about people who engage in torture. So there, we agree. I DO get what you're saying. I heard you when you said, "We thereby become more like that which we revile, and look upon ourselves the same way we do these savages." And the fact that, had you been malicious or a mud slinger, I would have refused to engage with you attests to the fact that we agree on this point.

I only argue that, though theoretically ideal, there comes a point where that ideal doesn't cut it. For example, and I say this only tease out my point and would never imply that a person such as yourself would DO this, but hypothetically if the mudslinging became a threat to my person or my family, I would throw my pride out the window and come out swinging. I would use any dirty trick I had. You have said you would do as much. And, yes, "we can do better." But when it comes to defending the innocent, do we care how "well we are thought of?"

I argue only this. I agree wholeheartedly with ALL that you say. I just believe that there is a LINE that, whence crossed, ANYTHING is fair play. And as I said in my very first post, I do not initiate that mud slinging or underhanded play (and make no mistake, we agree that torture IS that), but when it is slung at me to the extent that lives are at stake, then I alleviate myself of my conscience—and feel justified in doing so.

Now, Ms. Olivia, you have exhausted me!!! And I respect you even more so for that fact. I must run back to my family, as if I spend even one more minute in front of this machine today, a new war will begin. Smile.

I offer a cyber handshake and my undying respect for your fervor. You have made me chew on some very tough topics today, and for that I thank you, sincerely.

Goodnight all. Until we meet again.

I'm a post behind you, dear-I can't keep up!

I'm for all out war, conducted thusly-two nations disagree? Their leaders must engage in a tripartite contest:

1. A game of speed chess, and all the pieces the same color. (judges will have double-secret codes on the undersides of the piece bases)

2. A literal pissing contest, time limited, with a half hour of imbibing for prep.

3. Naked mud rassling, broadcast over CNN and BBC and Al-Jazeera.

Whoever loses two out of three must receive "LOSER" tattooed on the left buttock and a bad haircut. Also broadcast worldwide...

Of course there would be allowances for leaders of opposite sexes, but those details can be worked out.

The winning nation gets an ornate trophy and the right to dictate trade policy with the loser for ONE YEAR. Oh, and they can change the loser's National Anthem for that year too. That would really add some incentive-imagine everyone having to sing the theme song from Barney at ball games!

Of course, in my perfect world, all WMDs (especially the AK-47) are destroyed and people have to settle their differences with games of skill or, in worst cases, tug of war and creative cussing. The bad haircut and having silly limericks made up about the loser is shame enough for anyone, or should be.

Sorry all, but I was getting too depressed with the trend...

PS-Missy, you're a sweetie, and I'll cross swords with you (wordy ones, not like those guys) any day, because I know your heart is in the right place, and I'd like to think mine is too. I feel like we need a sleepover and maybe a pillow fight, though :P

Fo sho, dear! Feather pillows, please.

"People have to settle their differences with games of skill or, in worst cases, tug of war and creative cussing. The bad haircut and having silly limericks made up about the loser is shame enough for anyone, or should be."

Loved this!!!!

Ever read Nora Ephron on Huffington Post?! The 'bad haircut' reminded me of her Nancy Pelosi post, "Bad Haircuts." God, I love Ephron. We disagree on almost every point, but I so respect her.

I offer this link as an olive branch to my dear Olivia.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nora-ephron/bad-haircuts_b_38073.html

Has been so engaging, dear. I thank you. Truly.

Post script.

For the pillow fight, be sure to bring one of these:

http://jpeterman.com/product~cat~140202~sku~WSL%202250.asp

and a pair of these for when things get dirty!!!:

http://jpeterman.com/product~cat~110208~sku~MFT%201955.asp

Could not resist. Too fun.

Hon, I love Nora too-funny's always good! The nighty is SO ME, I have ones like it, but now I crave that very one, you bad girl. As for the boots, I can't manage the cost, I'll just have to bring my old wellies.

Feather pillows always! We'll have tea (or sherry?) and talk about EVERYTHING!

Thank you too, my tres chere amie!

See, now you have me dropping by the computer every few minutes to see what's going...

I suppose SOMEONE'S got to keep the embers hot, not let the side down, what?

Love the Huffington Post-thanks for the link. Nothing is worse than a bad haircut, so I've given them up, especially after a mammogram! No wonder she was deranged! However, I DO agree with her this time. She's dead on about Nancy AND the war, IMHO.

Should wear the nighty and the boots together-I think it would be a good look, what about you?

Totally. Way.

Hey kids, I'm back.
What'd I miss in my week without the internet?

Miss Ive & Olivia,

Me thinks that the two of you should should team up and negotiate with all of the leaders involved in these conflicts and bring them to their sesnses.  With your wit & words as a weapns, peace should be right around the corner.  I sit in awe.

 Be well

OK, now that I've dwelled upon today's discussion/debate I think this is the kind of topic that lends itself to being what I call, a "Mother Theresa" debate. 

By this I mean, an "ideal situation/ premise is made" by one side, a black and white statement, without any shades of grey . . . .  in this case "all torture is horrible" which renders any type of argument against that notion, not only impotent, but also casts the other side in an unfavorable light.  

In other words, to say that torture may be tolerated under certain circumstances is akin to saying that Mother Theresa was really a dirty, low-life blankety-blank.  It's just not acceptable to attack the ideal.

If your argument is from the very pinnacle of good, morale, ethical behavior (and there are not to many people who have ever reached that lofty peak, let alone cultures and societies), you cannot lose the argument.  You always have the high ground, literally and figuratively.

The only condition that an argument like this could be effectively resolved would be if all parties were on that same pinnacle, that same moral and ethical high ground.  But if that were the case, there probably wouldn't be any disagreements of this nature.

If both parties believe that they are the one occupying this moral and ethical high ground,  I 'm not sure you can ever get anything resolved.

 This is probably clear as mud but it is all I've got left in me today.

Be well

I think no problem.

good

I'm late to the party today........I competed in a triathlon today....very tired....but would like to comment.

I served in Vietnam, two years, with the Marines.  Many members of my family were killed in WWI and WWII, many of my friends were killed in Vietnam.  Killing for country is noit pleasant but sometimes necessary. I used to hunt game....I stopped in my 20's.  I would hunt again if my survival depended on it.  I have many years of experience of experience in the martial arts, I can defend myself well. I would hope I never have to.

Torture is not something we should engage in as a policy....it is something we must do if it's our survival at stake. There are two types of wars:  the first is a war between or among nations to decide some point or some conflict.  These wars are fought in a "restrained" manner...death is limited to the battlefied, civilian damage is minimized.  The second war is one of survival.  These wars are brutal and death is widespread. WWII, the first have of the 30 years war come to mind.  Torture is accdeptable to insure survival.

Are the current wars a matter of survival for our country and way of life?  If so, then torture is an acceptable tool.  If not, then it's not. Period.

Lovey!!!

Missed you, girl. How the heck was the cabin?

Thought of you during a couple posts. Cannot think of which ones just now, as Olivia has taken me for a few rounds today (!) as you can probably see. Ahhhh. . .

I will sleep well.

PeterLake,

Your words are kind. I enjoyed your first post of the day very much which is what brought me back on for more.

Be well, too.

My God, ladies!!!

That debate was one for the ages.  Lincoln and Douglas would be proud!  If we do have that get-together, be ready for me to give you each an enormous kiss because I just adore you both.  I know our host doesn't bestow accolades on multiple posts in a given day but, rest assured, you are both on my 'honor roll'.

And there was nothing in the world funnier than finishing that knock-down drag-out and then having Lovey show up and say, "I'm back; what did I miss?"  Honey, there is no way to convey the answer to that question.  This was monumental.

missive,

Not being kind, I just "calls 'em as I sees 'em"

DPR, you're a sweetie too! Thanks for the kind words-it was all fun, and so pleasant to discuss something with Missy and, as she put it, without mudslinging. I loathe the current fashion for demonizing and casting aspersions upon anyone who disagrees and expresses opinions counter to the conventional wisdom. I dislike ad hominem attacks, and Miss Ive and I were able to express our feelings in a civilized way that hurt no one. This is, to me, the essence of debate.

Lovey's interjection was indeed a good giggle. Welcome back, dear!