Jay Bybee speaks: "I WAS RIGHT ABOUT TORTURE"
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/us...ybee.html?_r=1

Can we hurry up and excommunicate him already? That would be a good start.

It boggles my mind how we can officially disfellowship Labute, but we can't disfellowship this man?

Oh yeah, that's right, most Mormons likely support torture.

Dammit, I looked at the Mormon Archipelago for any blog post or article that mentions Bybee or torture.

I couldn't find a single one.

Mormonania--a desert in the midst of oases. Wake up, sleeping giant, wake up. Rise up against evil.

I want to more fully understand your stance on the whole issue of torture. Are you OK with hunting down and killing Bin Laden and colleagues using any means available such as unmanned drones, bunker busting munitions and maybe even expertly trained snipers?

And before your ignorance gets the better of you (which is often the case). I am not in favor of torture and will not offer a defense of anyone involved in it.

"any means available". Of course I am not in favor of that. Only a fool would be in favor of that.

I wasn't implying torture as one of those means, rather any instrument of war available to the US military. And this is war we are talking about. Bin Laden is not a fugitive in flight from a guilty verdict handed down by a recognized court of law.

Seriously though, what is the difference between say an unmanned drone with bombs and missiles and a tactical nuclear weapon? They are both designed to kill. Perhaps it could be argued that one weapon is more or less precise or discriminatory than the other. But what a funny argument.

So, I repeat the question ... (excluding torture) are you in favor of any means necessary to get Bin Laden?

No, I am not. Let me know if you need further repetitions of my answer.

But you are in favor of the military catching and most likely killing Bin Laden and his colleagues correct? And his death may be an inherent consequence of the process ... certainly many of his comrades have in fact been killed!

So, what military action do you condone in order to capture Bin Laden? Is it OK for him to be killed by a bomb or missile fired from an unmanned drone? Is it OK for him to be shot by a sniper? Is it OK for him to be captured by a platoon that may have killed many of his comrades along with noncombatants in the process?

What is acceptable?

that's the problem with people like you. You think OBL is a person who is dangerous to the USA.

OBL is not a person. He's an idea. You don't fight an idea the same way you fight a person.

We had a president who went to war without a plan. Yes, that's right. He DIDN'T HAVE A PLAN. We had a puppeteer as VP who had all the foresight and caution to shoot his hunting companion, and ALSO WENT TO WAR WITHOUT A PLAN.

OBL is about 1000x as intelligent as Bush/Cheney/Tooblue.

So you are going obfuscate ... avoid the question ... and try to twist this into an argument about something else? Your comments above are a Red Herring.

You don't even know my beliefs but you do not have a problem painting them as something that is useful to you and your argument. The truth is the more you use such tactics and refuse to answer basic questions stated above the more you become a Jay Bybee ... or GWB/Cheney! From this point forward I should refer to you as Jay Bybee instead of Mike Waters.

I don't play 20 questions with people who have a history of not shedding any enlightenment on anything.

How many times do I have to say it, no, I would not use any means available.

Really? What is the difference between an unmanned drone with bombs and missiles and a tactical nuclear weapon? That really needs to be spelled out for you?

The drones have precision bombs which are designed to inflict as little collateral damage as possible while still eliminating their target. Tactical nuclear weapons are the opposite of that. They have a blast radius that is generally much larger than what is necessary for the completion of a mission, resulting in many deaths of non-targets, as well as the spread of radiation afterward. In short, other than the fact that both can kill people, they have almost nothing in common.

What is your point anyways? How did you even get onto this issue in a thread about torture (which you have already agreed you despise)?

So now you resort to denigration. Enlightenment is an interesting subject but ultimately has nothing to do with this discussion. I've narrowed the question and your refusal to answer can only be construed to mean that you have not thought this situation through. By the way ranting and raving is not enlightenment -- it's noise.

Ultimately we are talking about killing another human being, regardless of the method. How can you moralize one method is preferred over the other when they would achieve the same result? I'm really interested in understanding the idea that for many it is OK to condone killing Bin laden using conventional military means but it is not OK to use torture to glean information to find and kill said individual. It's a fascinating incongruence.

Honestly, I am appaled by the idea of torture, yet I willfully give my full support to the military to hunt down and kill Bin Laden (as do you and Mike based upon the history of discussions here). The more I think about it I have to ask what is the difference? Is there a difference? This has lead me to the conclusion that the moment one engages in differentiation, one becomes what one wants to despise in the opening comments of this thread.

In other words, mike, you and myself are no different than Bybee, we just prefer not to use the exact same methods, but our methods are no less heinous.

I couldn't disagree more, Tooblue, and I really am shocked you have come to this conclusion. To say that because one would support the killing of a person in a war, they therefore must accept the torture of that person (and any other form of treatment of that person) is a non sequitur.

War is to be abhorred, but it may be, from time to time, necessary. Even so, while engaged in the conduct of war, certain ethical behavior is still required of us. We are not permitted to do whatever we fancy in a war to other people simply because they are on the other side of a conflict from us. As sad as the reality of war is, that does not give us a permit to degrade the human form or defile the temple of God however we see fit.

God has permitted war in many circumstances, so long as the was is being fought with righteous desires. I challenge you to find one single solitary example of God condoning torture or the debasement of the human body.

That is not what I have said or wish to imply. I am saying that there are levels of acceptable moralization going on here, yet ultimately the goal is to kill a fellow human being. It is an incongruence that vexes me. You, I or Mike would prefer to use conventional methods such as bombs and guns. The previous Administration and it's advisors were able to stretch their moralizations to justify torture. But ultimately our goals are the same. Ergo we are the same.

There is no justification for war.

There is nothing ethical about war. To believe otherwise is folly. The goal of war is death and domination.

What is more degrading than killing a person and anyone else in the way remotely with an unmanned drone? Arguing ethics at this point is pathetic. Killing is killing, regardless the method. God gave the commandment: thou shalt not kill -- without exceptions. We are not permitted to kill period. However, we are permitted to exercise our agency and choose to kill. All men will answer for their actions.

God has permitted men to exercise agency and therefore wage war. That's not the same as permitting war. You cannot blame God for men's choices. Again, all men will answer for their actions.

A red herring.

Cali don't even bother. It's like talking to a kindergartener, and not one with wisdom such as "out of the mouth of babes".

Tooblue needs to crack open his Book of Mormon.

Thank you captain enlightenment. We are all grateful you're here to provide us cheese and crackers.

Tooblue- we have been through these kinds of exercises before. I don't know if you are just trolling here or if you are being serious, but your argument totally falls apart where you argue that "because our goals are the same, we are the same." I really am shocked you would suggest that: (1) our goals are the same (the goal isn't killing a person Tooblue, for at least "our side," the goal is winning a war which, ideally, is a war based on righteous desires); or (2) even assuming our goals are the same, that the means to the end is totally irrelevant for you- the goal (i.e. end result) is all that matters, and as long as the end result matches, the people desiring that end result are the same.

I can't even begin to fathom the absurdity of those claims.

Imagine this: 2 people, both with the goal to make money. In your world, they are now the same person, even if one of them is Bernie Madoff and the other is a guy who works hard every day of his life for an honest wage. I would hope you could differentiate between the two.

Furthermore, where do you get your assumption that everyone tortured dies, or that the purpose of torturing them is to kill them? Didn't you just vote for a guy who was tortured (and who lived)?

The means are frequently as, if not more, relevant to a determination of righteousness as the ends. And I totally reject as false your premise that war is never righteous. If that were the case, the unrighteous could oppress at will, and the righteous could never fight back because that action would be de facto immoral.

I also reject your premise that killing is always wrong and that there are never any exceptions. Self-defense? War? Are you suggesting that everyone who has ever killed anyone else has broken the commandment of "thou shalt not kill?" The scriptures chalk that up as a pretty serious crime. You may want to inform some of our prophets who have served in war, or the veterans in your ward, or the person who falls asleep at the wheel of a car and inadvertently swerves into another car, killing the driver.

Get real, Tooblue. You are living in an imaginary world.

If you read this site, you are aware that I have made preparations to defend myself and my family. We are instructed that we are to "stop" those that are threatening our lives.

And somehow, this is the same as people who would torture other human beings?

See, I don't want to get in these conversations because I don't have the patience for it. If you are such that you have come to this conclusion already, assuming you are older than 15, there is no helping you.

God has not revoked the commandment: thou shalt not kill. He has not qualified it with: thou shalt not kill, unless ...

The reality is anyone that kills another human will stand before the judgment bar and answer for what they have done. God will then weigh righteousness or circumstances accordingly, not man. So, all your hyperbole about telling that and this to so and so is erroneous. It will be up to God to decide. All we can do is endeavor to keep the commandment. And if we decided that is not possible and kill in self defense or fight in a war we must be prepared to answer for what we have done and accept God's judgment.

Furthermore, any attempt to justify one violent action over another renders you the same as Jay Bybee etc. It is that simple. You are the one living in an imaginary world where you believe you can assign ethics to killing, and moralize one violent act over another.

You summarily condemn Bybee for his moral rationalizations and see your moral rationalizations as different. It's hypocrisy.

Tooblue, you are a moron. Cali is nice, and says you must be just acting a moron for a reaction, that you can't possibly be this stupid. Call me naive, but I don't think it's an act.

You are lost in the woods with no compass.

Tooblue, I am honestly trying to think of a single positive contribution you have made over the years. I'm not coming up with anything.

Maybe there is something I have overlooked, so you other guys here, help me out--tell me what tooblue has contributed.

-------

The rest of us will focus on the task at hand which is whether the USA should be in the business of torture.

Name calling will not change the fact that you have made thoughtless and hypocritical comments about Bybee. Don't blame me for your insecurities.

What other guys? No one else is around. If this is an attempt to run me off it's not working. You will have to play victim with me around to watch.

This is me being nice.

You will soon see the uglier side. The side that is like unto Bybee. Right? Because that's what I am.

Really? You are the one equating Stalin with Nephi.

Link!

Now threats? Interesting.

One of my faults is that I was much too nice and patient with people that wished me ill. Like a cancer it grows until it is unmanageable.

The torture-purveyors are the same. They are the cancer that America is either doing to deal with now or ignore.

When America is gone, they will look back to now. They will look at the flouting of the constitution, the ignoring of laws in the name of security, the breaches of civil liberties. They will note how nobody cared, how people lied, how people were willing to trade their liberties for a false security.

In another age, Jay Bybee would be dragged onto the street and shot. His head would be placed on a pole in the city square.

I don't ask for that. I merely ask that he be questioned under oath. I ask that he be prosecuted, if he broke the law. I ask that if he was unethical in his prior job, that impeachment be considered. Whether that happens or not, I ask that he be shunned. Not as a leper. Because lepers we should care for and serve. Shunned like a devil.

The world likes it devils. And there will be people who call good evil, and evil good. "If you are against torture, you are a gross hypocrite." The number of people with any amount of moral clarity diminishes daily.

I only stated that it is hypocritical to judge someone for their moral rationalizations, while ignoring the inherent faults with one's own moral rationalizations. I've never wished you ill Mike.

They both killed people. They both wound up at the same end, which you said makes them the same.

I'm interested in, if he is prosecuted and convicted, whether or not his importance and conservative politics will protect him from a Church disciplinary action. If I were him, I'd move my records to the most redneck ward I could find and hope that discretion prevented any calls from the COB or CAB.

And here I thought church discipline of a person for merely holding an opinion was something you and Waters opposed.

I honestly don't know if Bybee is a member in good standing, if he is active, or what. I assume he is, but it's just an assumption.

My comments were all premised on a big "if." If he's convicted of a felony, is it really right to compare that to "merely holding an opinion?"

You aren't personally ramping up the political protection, are you Tex?

Tex, you should start contacting SPs and find out who will protect Bybee if he moves into their stake!

Depends on what he's convicted of. I've yet to hear a reasonable argument as to what law Bybee actually broke. If you want to make that argument, maybe I can give you a better answer on how a church leader might react.

As it now stands, Bybee is being assaulted because he authored an opinion (however well or poorly argued). And now you (and Waters) are suggesting it should cost him some measure of his membership.

I was under the impression you opposed that kind of thing.

I'm not going to play prosecutor, Tex, although I am enjoying yanking your chain a bit.

Ease off there, partner.

It isn't hard to come up with a law he broke. Torture is illegal. He would have committed conspiracy to commit torture.