The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Monday, December 19, 2005

Eminem - Mistreatment or Torture

AP is reporting that music by Eminem and Dr. Dre were used as "instruments of torture". The report states:

"New York-based Human Rights Watch has issued a report saying the United States operated a secret prison in Afghanistan and tortured detainees. The report quoted an Ethiopian-born detainee as saying he was kept in a pitch-black prison and forced to listen to Eminem and Dr. Dre’s rap music for 20 days before the music was replaced by "horrible ghost laughter and Halloween sounds." The report said detainees at the facility -- known as "Dark Prison" -- were deprived of sleep, chained to walls and forced to listen to loud music in total darkness for days."
I am sure the ghost laughter and halloween sounds were quite a respite from the sanity depriving sounds of Eminem. Please. Once again we see the word "torture" being watered down for political gain. What is next? Smelling stinky feet?

20 Comments:

  • At 12:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Once again we see the word "torture" being watered down for political gain."

    And your comedy routine making fun of torture is for the good of the country? Did you check out the source of the AP article? If not, check it out. The report details beatings, hiding prisoners from the Red Cross, and other violations of our established legal obligations regarding treatment of detainees.

    I fully expect that you'll have a hard time accepting anything from Human Rights Watch International, but take a look at the case and the legal precedents before cherry picking a few items in an attempt to discredit the whole. From a legal standpoint, the accusations if true are clearly torture. I challenge you to argue otherwise from a sound legal basis rather than from opinion.

     
  • At 12:28 AM, Anonymous paw said…

    Nuts - that post on top is from me.

     
  • At 7:27 AM, Blogger LASunsett said…

    Paw,

    Understanding that neither is preferable, would you say that it is better to have your head cut off, or is it better to endure what is described here in this article?

     
  • At 8:32 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    "And your comedy routine making fun of torture"

    So your definition of torture would include playing loud music? If it does, I have been tortured by my neighbors on many occassions. See why this is such a joke? My (non-tongue-in-cheek) definition of torture does not include playing loud music, so I cannot have a comedy routine on torture. Also, my so called comedy routine about so called torture is better for the country than siding against a sitting president during war-time.

    "Did you check out the source of the AP article?"

    I can no longer babysit AP. They are your the liberal's news wire, so let the liberals tell them to get their stories straight.

    "I fully expect that you'll have a hard time accepting anything from Human Rights Watch International"

    You are correct. Nor do I accept anything from the International Red cross.

    "From a legal standpoint, the accusations if true are clearly torture"

    It is the 'if true' that is the sticking point.

    "I challenge you to argue otherwise from a sound legal basis rather than from opinion."

    You are free to start your own legal based blog if you are qualified. Here, I am qualified to give my opinion; not legal statements. I can give my opinion on legal statements, which I do at times. However, like you I am an IT guy; not a lawyer.

     
  • At 11:54 AM, Anonymous paw said…

    LA, that's a false choice. I won't address it. I guess you, too, have nothing to say about the legal basis for you opinions.

     
  • At 12:01 PM, Anonymous paw said…

    Ok. It's your world. This is no longer informative. Maybe you should turn off comments. Have fun amongst yourselves.

     
  • At 12:30 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    "This is no longer informative. Maybe you should turn off comments"

    Why are you and everyone that disagrees with me trying to establish rules for my blog. I realize the words "my blog" and "get your own blog" come across as childish. That is not the tone I wish to convey. I am merely pointing out that I don't think it is unreasonable to determine how I post or comment in this forum.

    Symantics, vague definitions and quoting of sources I don't think reasonable to trust are often used to "prove" I am wrong and inconsistent. If I say my primary purpose is to give my opinion rather than inform, I will be accused of not informing or mis-informing. Where I make statements I expect to be believed, I do my best to provide sources. Where I look to entertain by satire or spoof, I do not feel the need.

    Anyway, I think 2006 will be an exciting year with lots of interesting material to post on. My comments will remain on and I hope to hear from you.

     
  • At 12:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "deprived of sleep, chained to walls and forced to listen to loud music in total darkness for days"

    The psychological and physical impact of such sensory overload/deprivation is very real.

     
  • At 12:56 PM, Blogger LASunsett said…

    Paw,

    I don't think it's that you won't, it's, you CAN'T answer the question. Tell me what's false choice about it? It's simple enough.

    You know it's becoming more and more apparent that you don't want to have a debate. What you want to do is criticize things that have no bearing on the subject matter posted. You want to adopt opinions that are fed to you by people you want to align yourself with and not use the brain, God gave you to think for yourself.

    Forget about legal questions here. This is not court, this not the Senate, or the UN. This is about your opinion (which you have failed to adequately articulate, unless you consider the old "my opinion is their opinion" tactic) and it is about opinions that contradict yours.

    I have asked you two very direct questions, both of which you refuse to answer or try to tap dance your way through, by throwing up a smokescreen. You have also failed to address the substance of the posts. You shanghai the subject matter to an indictment of any and every thing Bush.

    And then you have the audacity to ask for me to tell you what is the basis for my opinions? You don't want to have an intelligent debate, do you? You, just like my first wife, want to argue for arguments sake.

     
  • At 1:01 PM, Blogger LASunsett said…

    "The psychological and physical impact of such sensory overload/deprivation is very real."

    Then unlike Paw, maybe you can answer this simple question. Which action is more real and impacts a person's physical and psychological well-being more, having your head cut off or being sleep deprived and forced to listen to lousy music, for hours n end?

     
  • At 3:32 PM, Anonymous Sean said…

    "Then unlike Paw, maybe you can answer this simple question. Which action is more real and impacts a person's physical and psychological well-being more, having your head cut off or being sleep deprived and forced to listen to lousy music, for hours n end?"
    Are you trying to say that the U.S. should measure themselves by what the terrorists do? Are you trying to say that as long as we don't cut people's heads off, that we aren't torturing people? Is that what you are trying to say?!?!?

     
  • At 3:48 PM, Blogger LASunsett said…

    Still didn't answer it, did you? Yet you want me to answer your question.

    I'll make you a deal, answer my question then you can ask me and I will answer.

     
  • At 3:58 PM, Anonymous paw said…

    LA,

    Your unwillingness or inability to engage in a discussion that grows outside of your narrowly defined parameters reveals to me a number of things, the primary one being that I'm wasting my time. As for your invective, I don't think that's a very dignified way to conduct oneself in a quasi-public forum and I hope it felt good because I can't imagine what you think you were accomplishing. If I have in fact shanghaied threads and haven't added anything of value to this somewhat sleepy blog, well, I intended for it to be different than that.

    You can have the last word if you want. I'm done posting here. Over and out.

     
  • At 4:14 PM, Blogger LASunsett said…

    Alright Paw you win. It's not fair to punish AICS by not commenting here, because of your anger towards me. I won't bother you anymore, I thought you wanted a debate, guess I was wrong.

    Sorry AICS, I will pull back now.

     
  • At 4:45 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    LA/Sean/Paw,

    No problem on anyone's part here. We all have opinions and some lend themselves to exchanges that are not as civil as others. Nobody is being asked to go away, but nobody is twisting anyone's arm to stay and post either (not that it would do any good).

    As for the Sleepy blog comment, I can take it but it is a cheap shot because we are in a holiday season with limited time to blog. It is also below the belt since you do not have your own blog to compare who's is the sleepiest. When you do, let me know.

     
  • At 5:09 PM, Blogger LASunsett said…

    Oh, no problem here AICS. I will still come around, you have a damned good site, here. I just won't engage Paw, he doesn't want his views challenged. And I don't want to run your readers off.

     
  • At 6:10 PM, Anonymous Sean said…

    " Still didn't answer it, did you? Yet you want me to answer your question.

    I'll make you a deal, answer my question then you can ask me and I will answer."
    Look, I didn't answer your question because I'm having a hard time understanding it's bearing on the discussion. I don't understand how getting beheaded has anything to do with our discussion. You need to explain yourself.

     
  • At 6:58 PM, Blogger LASunsett said…

    Sean,

    You just don't want to answer it. It's okay, really, it is.

     
  • At 7:02 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Here is the liberal scenario for a detainee just brought in:

    Interrogator: I understand you may have information that will prevent the loss of US lives.

    Detainee: I don't have to tell you anything.

    Interrogator: If you don't tell me what you know I will torture you.

    Detainee: It is illegal to torture me.

    Interrogator: You've got me there. How about if I ask you nicely to tell.

    Detainee: I will say nothing, and by the way when is dinner?

    Interrogator: I am going to with-hold dinner from you until you tell me what you know.

    Detainee: That is mistreatment and I will tell the International Red Cross, Amnesty International and the ACLU. I will also tell the New York Times and it will be printed on the front page.


    Interrogator: ok, you win. Dinner is at 6pm and you get to eat better than I do. I just hope nobody I know is killed because you won't tell.

     
  • At 9:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Having your head cut off isn't torture, it's execution. You won't be getting much information from a severed head.

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home