June 4, 2009
"Murph" - CPT Nick Bilotta
Arm Wrestling, Travis Bagent - video [wmv] [mov]
"The Gitmo Myth and the Torture Canard" by Arthur Herman - Commentary Magazine
Posted by lauren at June 4, 2009 5:00 PM
I've officially been released from physical therapy for the left shoulder, had MRI on the right one yesterday. I can't wait to get cut into again! LOL
This couldn't come soon enough! My body needs a rest. Thanks again, this has changed my life.
God speed Herm...
Bagent is a BA...
Crossfit for life!
Is it too early to start getting really curious about what the wods are going to be next month at the games? can't wait to be a part of the whole thing.For anyone in Connecticut who hsasn't seen Any Second Counts yet we are showing it on our giant inflatable movie theater. The day starts at 4 pm on Saturday the 6th and includes a cookout/wod. The best part is it's totally free! Come down and spend a day at Crossfit USA in Berlin,Ct
Why does every other WOD come with some article or commentary advocating a libertarian or conservative perspective. I'm just waiting for the day I sign on and see "Read 'Atlas Shrugged' for time" as the prescribed workout.
Seriously, did we change the definition of fitness to include political leanings? I personally like to keep my politics and my fitness separate.
just one man's opinion though i guess.
I was very fortunate to have been able to arm wrestle both Travis and John in 2007. Here is the video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G59IHdiCyec
(WFS) I was so nervous. It was like getting ready to go one on one with Jordan. You already know what is going to happen.
Can anyone out there lend a little experience as to fact vs. myth about post-massage toxins?
I am thinking about getting one. (I'm guessing we could all use one right about now;)
Please stop putting your right-wing, pro-military BS on this website. I want to be in good shape; I do not want to join the military and participate in killing other human beings.
Love the workouts, but could really do without the links to right-wing articles. Can't we just exercise?
Keep the brilliant articles coming along with the WOD's - it's a breath of fresh air to have some truth posted instead of the tireless drivel they continue to propagate on CNN and the like.
"Atlas Shrugged" for time should be a WOD - great idea.
Comments 7 and 9,
If you don't like what's posted on this site, why don't don't you make your own site? Need I remind you that this is FREE!? How about showing a little gratitude and just say "thanks" and leave it at that? I can't believe your negative attitudes. As for me, thank you CrossFit! You have changed my life for the better and I truly appreciate the time and effort you put into keeping this site going for everyone.
#9 (and the others that will follow), you do not pay to access this site. The glassmans and others graciously offer their time and effort to put it up, keep that in mind. If you do not agree with anything here, well, no one is forcing you to stay.
Wow....some FNGs have had their "fragile sensibilities" stroked. Somebody call the Wah-bulance!
For the greenhorns: the "rest day topic" is meant to stimulate the parts of your brain that are not limited to regulating heart and respiratory rate.
Lighten up, Francis.....
Whew...much needed rest day for me as I'm new to CrossFit. Loving every minute of it!
Just do the workouts, seriously don't read the article if you don't like them!! Coach has been good to us by keeping this site free....
I am a Marine and I work for Barack Obama.
Rest day/Cheat day! I've already had my pizza...and grandma's apple crisp with ice cream. It was DELICIOUS. Maybe they'll magically fuel me to some amazing times next cycle since the last 2 have been a joke!
Enjoy the day everyone :)
#7 and #9 go live somewhere else then. Since you don't appreciate the freedom of speech.
Oh yea, can't forget about the freedom of CrossFit.
I speak for a lot of people here...that would glady pay a monthly fee for his site...but it is free thanks to the people (Coach and Lauren) that you bash for posting their thoughts and opinions.
Tell me something...you would sided w/ the Brits during the Revolution wouldn't you.
Weak people suck.
Oh man, this could not have come at a better time. I don't think my shoulders could take another day of crossfit.
This week I'm gonna join a Cross Fit affiliate gym, I'm really stoked for it.
I'm eternally grateful for the WOD's. I've just wondered since day one why these articles are posted. I think something as simple as a FAQ stating, "The staff at Crossfit HQ sympathize with a libertarian/conservative perspective and from time to time we like to share our perspective with the community." would be enough for me.
These little "extras" go beyond something that you can just take or leave. They promote a certain ideological perspective that people who are trying to change their physical lives could feel obligated to adopt. It's easy to see that these posts have an effect on the culture surrounding crossfit, either by making certain people feel more included, or by trying to change the views of someone already involved.
I fear that many CF gyms, both existing and future, have already adopted or will adopt the ideological perspective of the people running this site and this will have an influence on the type of people who feel comfortable joining a CF gym (or getting involved in general) and taking part in something that truly is life changing. I would hate to see someone who doesn't feel comfortable getting involved with crossfit on whatever level because they think it is for a certain type of people (be it a political type, or a military type, or a law enforcement type, etc...) instead of simply for the type of person who cares about improving their physical lives.
The best part of the rest day articles is the immature back and forth about complaining about an article that no one is forcing you to read answered by an intellectually hollow "Love it or leave it!" response.
I've been here three and a half years and that hasn't happened. Some folks agree some disagree some enjoy a spirited debate and some move on. Coach's social leanings really only drive rest days and the open source model. It doesn't seem to infiltrate into the Who should CF? model.
SJ #9, honestly, grow up, don't read the article, don't support the military, be a hippie, whatever, but think before you type.
Just remember SJ we fight for the very freedom that allows you to be such a turd.
Just remember SJ we fight for the very freedom that allows you to be such a turd.
I've never posted on here before despite using the main site WOD's for about 6 months now, but I have to say that the rest day "discussion topics" do grow a little tiresome.
Look, I understand that it is a free site, and no one HAS to read the articles. I think the CrossFit methodology for working out is something truly groundbreaking and has changed the way I workout and the way I look at working out.
My problem with the rest day articles is with the way they are defended by some people on here. When people complain that CF is promoting a certain ideology with these articles, plenty of people respond by saying these are only meant to "stimulate thought" or "start discussion" something like that. People claim this doesn't mean CF endorses a right-wing ideology. Well, I haven't looked through EVERY rest day topic since the site started, but when the majority are extremely conservative in nature (and virtually none are remotely liberal), it doesn't appear that "starting discussion" is the only purpose of these articles. You could post an ultra-liberal article from the Huffington Post, and I'm sure you'd get PLENTY of discussion going on here.
I just have to agree with 'spm' that continuing to post these type of articles (without a disclaimer that CF's founders support the ideology) seems to equate agreeing with the CF methodology with agreeing with the politics in the rest day articles. They're totally separate, and I just think it sends the wrong message. I would have no problem with these types of articles if there were at least SOME articles posted with a different viewpoint.
Again, this won't stop me from visiting the site and continuing to follow CrossFit's workout methods. I appreciate what the site has done for me. I just think there are plenty of potential CF converts who might be lost because they don't agree with the constant stream of conservative articles.
You don't have to read the articles. Just like I don't have to listen to weak ass liberals run their mouth about matters they have no clue on.
I just turn the TV off or in this for you weak'ies...just press x on the right hand side of your screen.
To quote the SSgt, go live somewhere else if can't handle the freedom.
I'm pretty sure we all suck some of the time. Hopefully none of us suck all of the time. As for the solidly conservative bent of most of the articles posted on rest days, I have trouble achieving mental stimulation based on the fact that they present arguments without meaningful discourse. Blogs are a really cumbersome venue for actual discussion; it just takes too long to establish parameters and definitions for the conversation. Plus, it is super tough to tell what people really mean when we can't hear or see them.
I would love to see a discussion between Arthur Herman and Bill Moyers. Unfortunately, inviting people with whom he disagrees a lot doesn't seem to be Bill's style. However, after seeing this week's episode of the Journal, which featured clips from the movie Torturing Democracy, it is clear that he and Arthur perceive the torture issue in general and Guantanamo in particular in strikingly different ways.
For me, world views are the real nitty gritty, but we don't seem to talk about where they come from too much. My favorite posting on CF.com was the list of biases that people regularly employ, such as in reinforcing their world views. In general, I really dig learning about how people get to perceive things so differently. The more I learn about that process, the better I can assess and alter my own in hopes of understanding reality in order to succeed in whatever.
Within fitness training, there are ample ways to detect discrepancies between perceptions and realities. If I'm hurt all the time or plateauing, chances are I'm just not getting something. It's a little tougher to do that with politics. I wonder if that article could withstand something like GI Jane.
Ironic that Lauren chose to post link to this article a day after news broke about the death of an inmate at Guantanamo by "suicide".
#23, the posture by Crossfit is good for business. You pander to the demographic that is most likely to purchase your product. If Glassmans start posting about the innocents jailed up in Guantanamo, they will lose all the monies coming their way from sales of T-shirts, affiliate gyms, Level 1-3, nutrition, olympic, kettlebell, rowing, running and barbell certifications. Whereas this website is a good resource, it is also a source of great money to the Coach.
As they say it is not personal, it is business.
"#7 and #9 go live somewhere else then. Since you don't appreciate the freedom of speech."
Oh, the irony.....
You guys are a bunch of cry babies. No one is forcing you to read the articles. Get a grip. Praise be to God and the USA!!! Thanks coach for the hard work and support for our freedoms that are slipping away!
I think I got it, the Arthur Herman manifesto should go something like this:
“We are the best tribe in America, every other tribe is stupid, cowardly, or evil. And most want to destroy America. Only we are smart, brave and good and want to save America.
Since our tribe is the only tribe that wants to save America, we are the only ones who know who the terrorists are.
If we say they are terrorists, then they must be terrorists because our tribe says so. Whether they are terrorists or not, we will torture them until they say they are terrorists.
See, told you they were terrorists.
If someone questions whether the people we say are terrorists are in fact terrorists, or asks for evidence other than the stuff we got from torture, then they are evil, stupid, limp-wristed cowards and they want to destroy America unlike our tribe who wants to save America. Those who question our tribe or ask for any kind of oversight are most likely terrorists too.
So since we’re so cool, American Laws should not be applied to our tribe and we should not be held accountable for anything we do. The legal system is for wimps, and liberals, and while we are at war it should not be applied to our tribe because our tribe is the only tribe that wants to keep America safe.
The war will last indefinitely.
Oh and everything thing our tribe does works and anyone who says it didn’t hates America and is a terrorist.
If we are caught doing something bad it wasn’t really bad because we are the only tribe that wants to keep America safe, and besides some of the other tribes knew about it but didn’t say anything, because if they did then we would call them terrorists, and if all the other kids say it's ok then its ok even if they are terrorists who hate America.”
If the pro-torture folks didn't do anything wrong then they shouldn't mind a teensy little formality like an investigation. Of ALL tribes involved.
#33 lewis dunn....i was thinking the exact same thing when i read that comment you quoted
it's articles like this one that make you feel like you belong here more than some "weak ass liberal." Get enough simple minded individuals like yourself around, in the CF gyms, on the site, etc... and that "weak ass liberal" is forever going to be, in your words, "weak" because they won't feel comfortable working out alongside you.
I've been to visit a few CF gyms and I have to say that it was very evident what the politics were there. I found it hard to imagine a "weak ass liberal" walking in there and feeling comfortable, god forbid an Arab or a Muslim. Never-the-less, many of you are right when you claim that the point that holds precedence is that this is the Glassman's site, and even beyond that these gyms are the owner's gyms and they can promote any culture they want and exclude any person they want. I just like to think that promoting fitness is more important that promoting politics.
On a personal level, I can deal with the articles, but if they really are about generating some sort of mental exercise (which granted, they usually are, I loved the Benjamin Zander TED talk) I think it would be beneficial for the conservatives around here to work on their defense instead of constantly being able to play dialectical offense.
Lets try to vary our perspectives as much as we vary our workouts and our movements.
Ok some of the parents really need to password protect your computers... your children are wreaking havoc on our blog
Its good to see good ol' Honaker Miracle with Cpt Billota leading the way. I was there from from July 08 until Feb 09. If there is such a thing as a front line in this war it is there. Stay strong Captain. regards. Team Loki, LLVI, 142 MI Bn. SGT Power.
Cool video. I wonder when to expect cable crossover and pec-deck in upcoming WODs?
I don't mind the articles, but I love the response "if you don't like it, leave." What a pig-headed statement. "Weak liberal" is another good one, clearly used by people lacking an adequate vocabulary. I love the physiological ideas behind crossfit, but if your politics are influenced by someone teaching you to workout, you obviously cannot think for yourself. I am just happy that many gyms are not following the absurd zealotry of this site. Politics and religion have no place in the gym. God bless the troops, but enough with the conservative propaganda already. Its sad really.
I rarely agree with the rest day articles. I am a fiscally conservative Democrat with 3 combat tours in Iraq, and still serving on active duty. I have not yet read today's article.
I rarely agree with the rest day articles (although I do not spend the time blogging on this site since I first started coming here back in 2003...look up some early rest days when it was just me, Barry Cooper, and Lynne Pitts posting and the articles were not political in nature, if an article was even posted). I certainly think that I have the right disagree without being called a "weakie" or being told I have to "live somewhere else." I know, I know, you weren't referring to me, but in a sense you were. Is the only good American a Republican?
Hey, SSgt B, MCAS Miramar, this is MAJ C, it appears that you don't appreciate freedom of speech either.
Point taken Sir.
I can see how that sounds "double standard".
Not my intent. I could care less on politics and the whole nine. I posted that remark due to the fact that the Glassmans post their own views on their own "free" site that people volunteer to go to. If they know the Rest Day articles are going to be something they don't agree on then why read?
That was my main intent...but like I said before I can see how my sarcasm was taken as double standard-ish. It is hard to convey your "true intent" w/ black and white on a web page.
Hello all, while the political "discussion" is very entertaining I have a quick training question. Been doing crossfit for about 2 months (thanks Glassmans for all your hard work). I had a more than lackluster performance this morning, feeling a bit guilty. Would it make more sense to rest tomorrow and regroup (both mentally and physically) for the next cycle or should I hammer tomorrow and go right into the next cycle? I know rest is essential but... Thanks in advance.
missed 2 days so i'll be working hard this rest day
(thank goodness for rest days!!!) :)
Great video! Travis seems a lot nicer of a guy when he's not competing.
This is why I mostly don't even bother reading the comments. Either someone is whining about someone else's form on kb swings or someone is whining about politics. Anybody got some baby oil?
Hahaha -- how is it that those that complain about the political content of this site fail to recognize that the owners are trying to strengthen the mind in addition to the body?
The founders of the U.S. were in no doubt strong in spirit, mind, and body. It's funny how they happened to also have libertarian tendencies -- like what is found here. Socio-commie drivel, though good for a chuckle, is for the weak.
This weak ass liberal can deadlift 650 pounds and my CFT is 1425. I agree that political beliefs should not be part of a fitness program. I live in a city with no Crossfit affiliate and last year spent a good deal of time trying to recruit people to the Crossfit program. I witnessed first hand the negative reaction some of these people had to the "righty" articles. I agree with free speech and am exteremly thankful for the free access to this site. However, it would seem to me that since the right wing party has been overwhelmingly fired from their public positions in both the executive and legislative branches over the past few years, it may make good business sense not to post articles blatantly oppositional to the opinions of the majority of the people in this great country.
I am fully expecting a response from some one that I should shut my hippie mouth and then in the same breath tell me I hate free speech. I do love the contradictions. Also being a liberal does not mean you do not support the military. I deeply thank everyone who has given their time, energy, and in some cases lives so we are able to enjoy our freedoms.
I would love to see a crossfitter beat that arm-wrestler at his own game!!
Dear Robb Wolf,
Isn't bad enough we have to deal with cars, now you have these a-holes trying to kill us.
I would love to see a crossfitter beat that arm-wrestler at his own game!!!
#40 asks a brilliant question: "Is the only good American a Republican?"
What an interesting train of thought for a rest day.
But perhaps that's a bigger question than the poster intended, and with a counterintuitive answer. While the concepts of being a Republican or a Democrat have been forcibly polarized, I don't think they should be, as they have been, directly correlated with being a "good" or "bad" American. History serves us well in demonstrating that the traits equated with being a "good" American can be found in those of both parties, who took actions in their time borne of real devotion to America and its future. But their treatment for these actions is telling.
Abraham Lincoln, perhaps the most celebrated Republican, is best known for his determination to abolish slavery and establish equal rights for all Americans. In this he succeeded to a greater degree than he possibly could have dreamed; his concepts that any American can achieve anything he or she dreams lives on in the Republican party, and the conservative movement, of today. Witness the rise of Colin Powell and Condolleeza Rice. Perhaps more relevant, note Clarence Thomas.
Also note the excoriation of two of these three achievers by their counterparty. What most would consider truly ultimate achievements - Secretary of State, Supreme Court justice - are routinely blasphemed by many on the left largely on the basis of the conservative nature of of the achievers' mindsets. So while the concept of human equality is a bastion of the left's rhetoric, its importance is demoted in practice should those demonstrating it not also be liberals.
Franklin Roosevelt, perhaps the most celebrated Democrat, led the US into World War II. Harry Truman, another luminary, hastened its end through the use of the atomic bomb in Japan, an action that, while catastrophic, likely averted a far greater loss of life. These men remain pillars of the American foundation, in large part for their fortitude in defending America against her enemies and retaining the unique American way of life.
But then witness Joe Lieberman, another (albeit erstwhile) Democratic luminary, indeed a former candidate for Vice President of the United States. Like FDR's and Truman's, his willingness to defend the US against her enemies was clear, demonstrated in his support of policies to protect us against Islamic terrorism that, while not easy, represented a firm stance atop soft sands. The furies unleashed upon him were swift and severe; he was effectively excommunicated from his Democratic party (ironically, largely thanks to a years-long domestic peace engendered by those policies he supported.)
These were and are good Americans. They lived by high ideals, put into practice both thanks to and despite powerful forces. But only one party appears to have based its judgment of them on the political expediency of the moment.
So, perhaps the question should be rephrased: "Must the only good American be a Democrat?"
If you don't want to drink the kool-aid, then don't, just don't bitch about how the kool-aid tastes, cause some of us here really enjoy it.
I was going to do a another parody post about the whiners and dang it they beat me to it.
Dang you whiners to Murphy!
To all the offended "weak liberals"; You are not a weak liberal because you don't agree with me. You are a weak liberal because you don't have the will, the stomach, the nads, and the sense of purpose to do what needs done. Most of you are probably smart enough to know what needs done.
The rest of you are the whiners who think America will be safer if "the world" thinks we are "nice". You say things like, "I've traveled the world since Obama was elected and its amazing how other people think were the good guys again." Okay, so a French waiter didn't spit in your espresso, and a British professor made you feel all welcome in a pub. How wonderful for you. Wake up lotus-eater, those aren't the people who are trying to KILL us. The people who are STILL trying to kill us.
The Glassmans obviously feel very strongly about their political views. And thankfully, they are allowed to express those views. For anyone who opposes, this is an open forum for you to disagree. But, to ask them to stop the posts entirely just seems insulting and immature.
I don't understand this idea that we are all somehow entitled to go through life without ever being offended.
If the aim of the rest day discussion is, as many have loudly explained, to work out the mind as well as the body, then how come the workout is so often the same thing?
I mean, poking holes in the logic of right wing rants is fun and all, but two weeks in every three? It would be like making every third Crossfit workout "Fran". (Oh jeez, please no)
If my ability to clean and jerk improved as much as my ability to mock conservatives, I would be an Olympian by now.
got my hamstring grinded today b the best chiro ever Dave Shapono from Millbrae after 2 treatments I am almost pain free and can start hitting it hard again...Thanks Dave
Libertarian salad: Lettuce alone LOL
Lucky Guy is libertarian. Perfect antidote to my insomnia. When I can't sleep I ask him to tell me about things like Free State Wyoming and sure 'nuff I am sawin' wood and countin' sheep in no time..zzzz...sometimes I wake briefly from his arms thrashing as he punctuates sentences, illustrating how the brute force of government is violently compelling me at gunpoint to ... well. I don't know 'cause I am usually back asleep by then :)
“Misery (CrossFit) acquaints a man with strange bedfellows” - Shakespeare
Happy Rest Day everyone!!!
FRAT!! get some rest!
WE CAN ALL SPEW INSULTS AT EACH OTHERS POLITICAL BELIEFS, SPEW HATE ON EACH OTHER'S RELIGIONS, BUT LET'S NOT DO THAT HERE. LET US STAND TOGETHER AND CROSSFIT AS A COMMUNITY INTERESTED IN A COMMON GOAL, CROSSFIT. LET US ALSO EMBRACE THE FACT THAT WE HAVE THIS GREAT FREEDOM OF POLITICAL AND RELIGOUS CHOICE. I AM A JEWISH LEFTIST LIBERAL WHO DISAGREES WITH MOST CONSERVATIVE IDEAS, YET I WILL PROUDLY STAND NEXT TO ONE AND HELP HIM MEET PUKIE AND CAPTAIN RHABDO AT THE DOOR!!!!!!
oh bother! post held in filter
jakers- I was hoping I could make you laugh with some libertarian comedy. because there is so much of it out there.
oh well. DL 205 x 5 tonight. Not bad for lotus eatin' hippie chick.
I love the many variations of:
"Don't get me wrong, I support the troops."
You just don't support what we do... got it...
64- Yes, that is exactly it.
I "Support the troops" because what I really care about is them coming home. I think there is a lot of stuff going on that I don't fully understand, but each soldier's death overseas is a tragedy beyond measure.
Nothing ever goes as planned. I ate perfect meals all day to pull off the 800m/pull-up craziness. Then some drunk lady decides to plow into another car one hour before I was suppose to get off shift. Turned my 12 hour shift into over 14 hours. Drunks are definitely not any fun when you are not yourself drunk, and for some reason my Chief frowns on me getting sauced while on duty.
Rest Day is a make up day for me.
Instead of complaining and making ad hominem attacks which seems to be de rigueur for both sides all over the internet today, how about people read the articles and either support them or provide an intelligent counterpoint? If you look through todays thread you have CrossFitters calling each other "weak liberals" or how easy it is "poking holes in right wing rants". I'm more on the conservative side of things but as soon as I see someone start bashing someone else personally I shut down to their points. As far as poking holes...easy to say but how about you prove it by walking the walk, not talking the talk. In the end the point of CrossFit and what differentiates it from every other fitness trend is the community.
As far as today's article goes...Gitmo has always been overblown, legally the majority of detainees there do not qualify as prisioners of war under the Law of Land Warfare. Per FM 27-10 the US Army's Field Manual that covers the Law of Land Warfare there are four requirements for "Militias and Volunteer Corps" to be considered POWs. A)Command by a Responsible Person B)Fixed distinctive sign C)Carrying Arms Openly D)Compliance with Laws of War. All four are required to legally be afforded status. But in reality we still treat them under the Geneva and Hague Conventions. What everyone forgets with tribunals and applying the Constitution to foreign fighters is that Gitmo is a POW camp and the legal process doesn't apply...the Germans in WW2 didn't get tribunals.
The related issue of torture is much more clear cut. We are the US...we don't do it. The end does not justify the means. We still don't know if what Khalid Sheikh Mohammad said was true or just to get the water boarding to stop. The good cop/building trust approach has been proven to work and give us actionable intelligence. What do we tell our grandkids? That we were doing it because we were ordered to? So were German soldiers and SS members and it didn't cut it then either. We do things the hard way but the right way, no matter how painful. That's what makes this country great and isn't that what we learn on every workout? Never sacrifice quality or cheat on Fran or Murph, no matter how bad we are hurting?
Rant over. Rest day as RX'd
Every right wing person here loves freedom of speech and political articles as long as they agree with their own views. If an article/comment was posted about left wing ideas, all the right wing people would probably call BS all over it, saying how it's un-American, and what not. They would no doubt blow their top if someone told them to take it or leave it, and that's it's their right to disagree.
American ideals apply to everyone, not just people who share your opinions.
Personally, I think political articles don't belong on this site, regardless of who they're supporting. Keep fitness to fitness, and if you want to provide intellectual stimulation on rest days, or discussion, post something fitness related.
Sweet, thanks for telling Coach what to post on his own website!
Maybe tomorrow you can post and let him know what workout to post! Oh wow, that'd be amazing!
Or maybe you could just ignore the article, take a day of rest, and then workout again tomorrow! What a thought!
Trying to change someone's political leanings is more difficult than convincing a chronic couch potato to go a few rounds with Fran....
I guess that's why some of you resort to calling each other names or to begging for coach to post more liberal articles.
Heroes died for what? ... Please don't squander their sacrifice by reacting like children.
Much needed rest day, I'll spend it thinking of those I could not be with overseas. Thinking of you guys makes me train harder because we don't always appreciate what we have. My pain shall be my appreciation.
Actually, I'd really love to hear what brand of socks he prefers, as well as who cuts his hair, because they're both of paramount importance to my health and fitness, and the reason I visit this site and workout in a CF gym.
ha ha ha ha.. hey Sgt Feather...
WHen in the HELL did France and Britain become the people trying to kill us?
Britain has been our friend for over a hundred years.. and France hasn't killed a fly since the revolution..
and to Chas.. the post you had was very well thought out.. but one prob.. ya lincoln was labeled a "republican" but that was because the democratic party didn't start til Teddy..
Lincolns beliefs (as well as many of our early Presidents) were actually very left.. (i just heard a GASP from all the Reps.. LOL)
People! Go study US history.. you'd be amazed at what you learn..
Or just sit on your porch with your tobacco stained shirt and shotgun in your hand.. listening to Glenn Beck, talking about how stupid liberals are..
I've never met more hateful people that the conservative party..
Following #74, I'd love to hear which movies coach has seen recently, and what his views on leather and various decorative touches around the house are too. Heck, why not also post articles relating to accounting, finance, horticulture, agriculture, and human sensuality. Who says this is a fitness website! It's called Crossfitagriculturepoliticsinteriordesignsensuality.com, right?
Hey Muldoon, sorry if I sounded like I was having a dig at anyone's opinion on the site; when I said "poking holes in rants" I was referring to the article in question.
I think my favourite part was the indignant assertion that torture had only been applied to exactly three suspects. Well I guess that makes it swell. I mean, Lee Harvey Oswald only shot one president but other than that he was apparently a good guy.
Reminds me of an old saying, you can be brave your whole life and not be called courageous. You can be truthful you whole life and not get called honest. But if you get caught having sex with just one goat...
Who cares about that political article?! Its boring.
That arm wrestling dude is awesome!! Let's talk about that instead!! Here's a true, and really interesting arm-wrestling story:
When I was in college, I worked at a movie theater in my home town, San Angelo, TX. And former San Francisco 49ers defensive lineman, Pierce Holt, came in with his wife (who I believe is from San Angelo) to watch a movie. Now, I, being the competitive young guy that I was, challenged Pierce to an arm wrestling match as I was ringing up the popcorn by saying "So....I heard you wanted to arm wrestle me..." (by the way, I was a skinny 160lbs cross country runner) He accepted this challenge and with a smile assumed the standard position above the overpriced movie candy case. We clasped hands, and as I began the countdown of 'ready, set, go' I had already begun to envision my triumphant dance and proclamations of "I beat an NFL player in arm wrestling!" I imagined I would be the hero of the day at the movie theater. I assumed all this was going to be possible because I was about 19 years old, visibly skinny, and Pierce, just by virtue of being in the NFL, was something of a hero to me, and would hence LET ME WIN the arm wrestling match. I was dead wrong. Pierce quickly and easily beat me, putting my arm down over the Reese's peanut butter cups in a sickening display of strength and power. And I was saddened.
Today I passed on this tradition of not letting kids win by beating the fastest 5th grade kid at my sister's elementary school in a sprint (along with several other challengers). I'm no track star, but they thought they could beat me. Or that I'd let them win. But I didn't. Thanks Pierce!
On the topic of healthy competition, my sister informed me that in field day events these days, there is really no competition and all the kids are "winners." Isn't that the breeding ground of mediocrity? But, have no fear, the teachers say by middle school this mentality goes the way of the dinosaurs and you have to be good to play. Good job middle school coaches!! And thanks to all you teachers out there, being in that elementary school class today made me, once again, appreciate what teachers do for us. Thanks Teachers (and coaches)!!
Mine was not the shortest post but also not the longest. Either way you have to read ALL the words, not just some.
"aren't"; it's a contraction, it means "are not"
much needed after all those pull ups
Those of you who think articles like today's drivel do not limit the spread of Crossfit are dead wrong. Perhaps Coach and Lauren don't really care, that's their right, but if you are a struggling affiliate owner you should consider the consequences.
Only in America do people feel that they have a right to complain about something that they did nothing to earn. The site is free, and you don't have to be here, nor does anyone need to explain themselves to you.
Luckily though, this country is free too, and there are men and women who pledge everyday to keep it that way. Again...if you don't like what you read here...browse your way away.
Seems like rest day discussions have degenerated over the last 2.5 years. Used to be fun to read smart analysis and discussion/rebuttals of the issue. I was always excited to see who would chime in - Jeff Glassman perhaps -now it's just silly. I wonder if we are seeing a microcosm of our society here? Nobody wants to discuss and debate issues anymore. discussions become too fraught with name calling and defensiveness and other mind numbing silliness. ah well, ch-ch-ch-ch-changes.
The political articles, so far that I have seen in my limited time on this site, do not spark discussion. Perhaps that is because they come from a narrow and singular perspective. When this happens, discussions shut down. If the operators intent was to promote discussion, then why not present cogent articles about topics from many different angles? Otherwise, you are alienating people and you are, whether you like it or not, defining how some see CrossFit. If you really want the discussions to happen, which would be great, let's move the politics to the message board and have the discussion be driven by participants, not administration.
Strength and Honor! Meatmurph 6 at his finest!
Coincidentally, this picture is taken just miles from the location LT Murphy gave his life for his comrades earning the Medal of Honor posthumously. Hence the name of the workout.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, as are the Glassmans.
I take exception to one of your statements:
I've been to visit a few CF gyms and I have to say that it was very evident what the politics were there. I found it hard to imagine a "weak ass liberal" walking in there and feeling comfortable, god forbid an Arab or a Muslim."
Well, I've been to several CF gyms also (San Fran, Columbus, Vegas, Scottsdale) and have never seen/heard/sensed anything of any political nature. I met nice people who were interested in CF and were always welcoming to a stranger.
For you to suggest that a CF gym by its definition it some how anti Arab or anti liberal, or anti anything else is disrespectful to the gym owners.
No comments here on left-right wing, rather the other day's post on nutrition has me thinking.
I am trying to eat paleo, or at least 40/40/20-ish split. But how many calories do I need in a day. 34 yrs old, male, 189-190lbs, do WOD every day plus some other moderate exercise. I've been trying to hold at a good 2500 cal / day, but am tired as can be. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
I was going to smack number 7 and 9 for being idiots but most of you have done this well enough.
go elsewhere if you don't want to see what is posted on a FREE site.As a matter of fact go see if Keith Oberman fits your sensibilities a little more.
Nick, Way to Represent Babe! :)
If you don't like the alternative viewpoint articles on this free site, then perhaps you should turn your attention to any mainstream news outlet for your feel-good fix. Kudos to Coach!
Love the article...thank you.
You know, one day there will be zombies combing your neighborhood; are you prepared? You'll no longer be worrying about "weak-ass" liberals or "rightwingbuts," but instead, you'll be worried about keeping something from trying to eat your brain.
And by the way, everyone on the site talking about freedom, you really are not free until you've lived out of a shopping cart, slept in a carboard box, and received your meals from 5 different soup kitchens. Only then do you truly answer to no one. Don't believe me? What would you be doing right now rather than your current activity, aka. work, or your current schedule that's got you so tied down? Are you really free, as in chucking it and doing EXACTLY what you want? Or have you made the choice to sacrifice your time, the very air you breathe doing work for something or someone you really don't want to?
Me, personally, I am not free at all; I want to go home and lay next to my boy and watch him make funny faces throughout the day, or watch just watch his eyes open and look into them for hours, or sit there with something meaningless like Ice Road Truckers on the television and watch him flip his little arms and legs around. Silly, yeah, but that's the effect babies have on their pops.
Just some random thoughts to lighten the air a little on the board today, you know, keep each other human and not attack each other like beasts...
A magazine post from the vaguely named "Commentary Magazine"...
I am new to crossfit and love the workouts. I have all but given up on conventional gyms and workouts. I hear people use the term "crossfit nation" and "crossfit family" all the time. Outside of the kick ass WODs it is those phrases and the feeling that those phrases elicit that draws me to crossfit. I cant go to a crossfit gym, there is not one in my area, so I do my WODs at a globogym and while Im kipping and thrusting and running back and forth between the weights and the rower I can feel the muscle heads looking at me like Im some kind of freak, like I dont belong in "thier" gym. As a newbie I am looking for a community united in a effort to develop real fitness, and to encourage others to reach new PR's and the like. I guess I dont know what to think when I hear CFers going back and forth with what are essentially insults in one big pissing contest. The conservative calls one person weak, the Liberal fires back with some insult and the whole thing turns into a "fight gone bad" if you will. How about we let people think what they want, whether you agree with it or not and focus on becoming the "family" and the "crossfit nation" we claim to be. We can be ultra conservative and tell people to move to another country or we can be ultra liberal and tell people what they should or shouldn't post, either way both sides end up sounding totalitarian. Maybe we should make one big crossfit flag that we hang in the gyms, or a crossfit pledge that we can all embrace without feeling like there is a huge divide between us. Crossfit unity is more important to me than political dribble. I hope that you all feel the same.
As someone who (before reading the article) was very anti-Gitmo and pro-war I am actually shocked to have my opinion changed by a rest day article.
One often hears of the atrocities at Gitmo and how horrifying life must be there. Even John McCain called it torture and that gentleman definitely knows what real torture is all about. It's funny to realize as John Stewart of all people said the other day "Once you read what actually went down, you realize much worse stuff happens daily at Frat houses."
One of the tennants of a political science theory called realism (basicly used to describe and predict states behavior during the cold war) is the "rational man" idea. This idea states that given the same information leaders of different countries would make the same decisions, ie when faced with nuclear annihilation neither leader would launch the first bomb.
This article does a great job of explaining the rational processes used to develop Gitmo. Does anyone honestly believe that GW is "stupid?" I would bet a dollar to a gluten free oat cake that given the same information even the liberals on this board would make the same, or worse decisions than the president and his EXPERTLY trained cadre.
From the desk of the right-wing: be afraid america!
Torture is illegal but the worst part is ...it doesn't provide good intell. Just ask that right-wing radio talker from chicago who volunteered to be waterboarded and lasted 6 seconds ... biggest chuckle i got all week. Comparable even to my joy of getting a 7:33 PR on "Karen" yesterday. WOOT!
Why is everyone arguing with each other. Yes, the article was a heavy right lean, but how can any American (conservative or liberal) agree with what Ratner represents.
Civil rights is about caring about everyone; no matter what race, nationality, or religion. I don't see this at all in what Ratner is doing.
I don't care if your a liberal or conservative. Your opinion is your opinion, and thats what makes America great is that we can have our own opinion. Honestly though, Ratner abuses this to the point that it almost makes me ashamed to be an American.
Cpt. Bilotta - good to see you are still training like mad man. Keep up the strong work. If you ever make it back to the No. Va. area - please stop by and catch another workout with CF Fairfax ! Take care.
Look at CPT Bilotta "mean face" through that last mile in the rain.
Stupid liberals should be shipped to an island and blown up.
I thought it was really funny how the author blew right through the Abu Ghraib stuff and just said that there was absolutely no connection between prisoner abuse in AG and GTMO, because GTMO doesn't have any secret dungeons or basements and had an NCO on duty all the time. That was good. I mean lame. But entertaining!
This will be the last semi-political post I make. But the way I see it, there are plenty of sites out there where we have the opportunity to voice our political views. I LOVE Crossfit and I love the fact that everyone here is so supportive of our troops. But I come here for the exercises.
I happen to lean to the right so I agree with most of the views in the articles posted here but generally, I dislike commentary like O'Reilly and like Olberman. I don't need to hear everyone else's opinion, I have my own. So guess what... I don't read the articles.
If you have a problem with the articles, DON'T read them. Either that or decide, which is more important, keeping access to this INCREDIBLE resource or letting articles and commentary ruin it for you?
Either way, it's not MY site and I don't pay for the hosting/bandwidth/etc... so I figure I don't really have a say in what's posted on it except for to say how great the exercises are.
Typical liberals, when ever someone is displaying a conservative point of view they complain and say it shouldn't be said in public. But, when ever they state there opinion it is taboo to critize them. Hypocrits I think so, and if you don't like it... Well I'm expressing my freedome of speach and the last time looked it didn't just include liberals.
You know, reading these responses, one is tempted to include that many of the zombies are already here. Listen: democracy is INTENDED to support aggressive, principle based debate. There is, by law, room for EVERYONE who has an opinion.
But if you want to use a technique--ad hominem--which was known by the ROMANS--who had a Senate and debates--to be BS, then you are not acting as someone who wants to do your part to help preserve your own liberty.
If you want to continue governing yourselves--if you want to continue to DESERVE to be free--then LEARN TO THINK. Read the damn article. Think about it. Figure out what principles you want to use to analyze it, then POST IT.
It is freaking WEAK SAUCE to complain that debates lead to no productive conclusions, WHEN YOU DON'T BOTHER TO CONTRIBUTE ANYTHING. It is lazy to simply call an article "drivel" or something along those lines, without bothering to say why. Can or should one reading these comments conclude anything other than you simply saw something that did not accord fully with your own biases, and rejected it out of hand, EVEN THOUGHT IT WAS WELL ARGUED AND CAREFULLY DOCUMENTED?
If you all want to be zombies--if you want to surrender the right and obligations of freedom to someone who is more than happy to take them from you--then you deserve what you get. You deserve a Big Brother who regulates and monitors your every last move. You deserve to get what the Left has planned for you.
If you want to live as a self respecting, honorable member of a system in which people cultivate their capacity for rational, principled based dialogue, so that they can properly manage their own affairs, then CONTRIBUTE.
Hey Just Saying I totally agree with you about torture, one person or a thousand it is still morally wrong and a blight on our national honor.
The problem on here is everyone looks at the other side as cookie cutter clones. Let's say you have a pro-life Catholic union member who is struggling with his health insurance and likes to go hunting. What party does he belong to? Is he a conservative Democrat or a moderate Republican? The reality is he doesn't fully fit in either party and the extremists in both parties would marginalize him.
#75 Funny, the GOP has always been a pro-business party and equal rights, despite what some Democrats and Media would try to spin, has always been a conservative value. Lincoln would hardly be considered a liberal...he suspended habeas corpus and presided over the bloodiest war in our history. The Democratic party did in fact exist during his time. The modern Democratic Party was formed in 1828 by a split in the Democratic-Republican Party over Jackson. The Republican Party was founded in 1854 as the pro-abolition, pro-business party. By 1860 the Republicans were bolstered by the defection of a lot of former whigs and northern democrats due to the Pro-slavery plank of the Democrats which led to the Civil War.
Herm: Hooray for the left shoulder!
Pony: Nice work on those deadlifts.
Cougar Hunter: The medicinal benefits of Grandma's apple crisp are undisputed. You'll PR on anything now ;-)
Man hugs and bad English all around, GO FRAT!
I STRONGLY SUGGEST GIVING HOT BOX YOGA A TRY. IT FITS IN PERFECTLY WITH CROSSFIT AND IS A GREAT WORKOUT. GIVE IT A SHOT
Comment #70 - Posted by: B2
Seems to me we 'Right Wingers" would probably discuss the issue or rebutt the points made... i'm reading through the comments and I don't see anyone 'on the left' rebutting the points made in the article... I see a lot of you whinig about the 'perspective' and 'point of view' and the 'right lean' but no actual, factual rebuttals... hmmm, I think maybe you are missing the point? Maybe you should come up with a fact or two that would change someone's mind? Oh damn! There we go again asking for facts... I know you're probably thinking, 'why can't these conservatives just feel their way through life?'
BTW, nobody asked you to think, Personally, I think opinions are like @ssholes... This is the Glassmans' pulpit... Hey if they're this right about fitness I'll certainly listen to their ideas about other stuff too.
There is too much stupidity above to warrant in depth responses, but if any of you think you actually made a strong point, repost them and direct them to me. I don't expect many takers on that, but maybe you will surprise me.
I have to say, in reading these articles, the persistent question keeps occurring to me: what GOOD do these anti-Gitmo activists think they are accomplishing? They are protecting people who employ unregulated torture much worse than waterboarding on a regular basis, and who covet the opportunity to KILL large numbers of innocent people.
If you analyze the facts, you clearly see that everything the Bush administration did was not only morally defensible, it was likely the MOST MORAL thing they could have done.
Look at this, for example: "He [the detainee] also revealed [through techniques that clearly did not rise to the level of torture] that the true mastermind of the attack was Osama bin Laden’s deputy Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Qahtani also fingered another Saudi al-Qaeda operative, Adnan el-Shukrijumah, who was in the United States organizing another 9/11-style attack for the summer of 2004. Khalid Mohammed’s subsequent capture in Pakistan in March 2003 revealed still more details which, we now know, enabled the Bush administration to foil a second wave of suicide attacks directed at Los Angeles."
WE STOPPED AN ATTACK. WE DID NOT USE TORTURE. What is the problem with that?
Please understand me carefully: people like Michael Ratner, their painstakingly crafted propaganda notwithstanding, HAVE NO INTEREST IN HUMAN RIGHTS. If this were the case, they would apply their principles equally to the United States and other nations. They would care about the consequences of their actions. They would care if they create more damage, pain, and suffering that alleviation of the same. They would care as much about the guilty being punished as the innocent going free.
None of this is on display with respect to this particular case. There is no sign, WHATSOEVER, that they cared in the slightest about the objective conditions of the detainees. THIS WAS SIMPLY AN OPPORTUNITY TO EMBARRASS REPUBLICANS.
You have to ask, then, who are these people who are willing to commit any act of deception, and countenance any and all acts of evil of our opponents, merely to get and keep power? What is the end game, if the means are deception? Simple: keeping power.
Leftism, in its purest form, as displayed by Saul Alinsky, is nothing more or less than a system of getting and keeping power. Alinsky himself, of course, wanted America to become a Communist (fascist: it's functionally identical) nation.
For example, consider this quote: "A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism." p.10
As was well known in our pre-Postrational Age, i.e in the ancient history of the 1950's, when people did not find debate so odious--so at odds with their conformitarian individualism--Truth for a Communist is whatever advances his agenda.
Alinsky, again: "An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth -- truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing.... To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations...."
Having spent more than enough time at GTMO feeding iquanas, screwing with banana rats, and spending free evenings down by the jerk shop, I can say I don't really care if the place goes away and gets moth-balled. Many great young soldiers left GTMO, returned home and did not reenlist simply because working a detention facility is mentally and emotionally draining, and, if you can't detach yourself after the shift, can bring all sorts of hell into your life.
I never cared for the politics (US or the international) surrounding whether or not GTMO should have existed in the first place. However, I do know that the real bad guys who have a long-term stays at GTMO are the ones that no other country wants, and have done things as professional insurgents/mercs/whatever that make you wonder why God allows them to exist on this planet.
Lastly, each of us has a vote and a voice that can be used to influence our Representatives, Senators, and to some small extent the President. For those people who ardently support one view of how GTMO should or should not be woven into the fabric of what we euphamistcally call the "global War on Terrorism" I recommend you use your vote, voice, and energy to change the things you can or at least be a pain in someone's ass who can do whatever you think needs doing. On the other hand, if you just like to have written arguments via the internet, please feel free to write away - like this little post - and let us FRAT our way down to those comments that pique our interests.
Now, we have to understand that the principle virtue of democracy, for Lenin, was the openness with which the subversion of that system could take place.
I look at people like rhowk, and they have given away their ancestral birthright of intellectual freedom--manifested by the capacity for sustained, principle based discourse--for a promissory note from a would-be autocrat for whom deception is as natural as breathing.
The zombies are not a joke. They are quite real. And they are all around us. The bullets which kill them are continued faith in our Constitutional system, in the potential moral perfectibility of humans as individuals, and the consistent use of Reason.
I enjoyed reading the article, although it didn't address any of the legal problems with the memos.
what I got from it was basically "c'mon... it wasn't all that bad... c'mon..."
in fact if that article is the best one can offer in defense of the bush administration, I think it's time to take him to court immediately.
to the CF team, thanks for posting it.
to anyone whining about interesting information being provided by the CF guys, give me a friggin' break. it's not like they posted some lame political cartoon. this was a well-researched (though in many places incorrect) article that was a pleasure to read.
if anyone would like an alternative view on detainee abuse, I recommend this link (w/f/s): http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/statement-of-fbi-agent-ali-soufan-at-torture-hearings/
15 handstand pushups
30 GHD situps
15 chest to bar pullups
Why should religion and politics be kept out of discussions regarding other topics such as fitness?
Shouldn't a person's integrity force them to put forth their beliefs via any medium they can?
I believe abortion is murder. If I own a website that is visited daily by thousands of people, isn't it my duty to use that medium in any capacity I can to try to influence people to abolish abortion?
There are potential consequences...the people that visit my sight could get "uncomfortable" or feel "alienated"...offering strong opinions on such a divisive issue could hurt my revenues. Don't I have a moral obligation to myself to put forth my beliefs anyway? Do I believe the "comfort" the general population finds in avoiding discussing abortion is worth more than a child's life? What about my revenues...are those worth more than a child's life?
When you believe in something, it should find its way into everything you do. Otherwise, you don't believe in it that much. Avoiding discussions about important topics such as war in order to stay comfortable or make money is the cowardly path to take and it says something about you.
If I believe in something strongly...my integrity should compel me to do something about it. Yes, people may be offended and I may suffer harm for it, but since when has life been about staying comfortable and living self servingly?
The actions you take demonstrate your priorities. Choosing not to speak out and take a position demonstrates a priority. The Glassman's may decide that their website is better off without political articles...I'm glad they haven't. Someone above said that Crossfit has been harmed by the political slant of these postings. Although Mr. Glassman has invested thousands of hours and unbelievable energy into this fitness regimen, perhaps there are principles that are more important to him than exercise routines. If the beliefs put forth in today's article are more important to Mr. Glassman than money, comfort, and exercise...doesn't he have an obligation to post it?
Put liberals on an island and blow them up? China did something like that 20 years ago...
The posted article is full of biased fallacies. As someone who serves in the Armed Forces, I am furious with "interrogation" policies set forth under the Bush Administration. Those policies produced no actionable intelligence and will endanger American servicemen and women for decades to come. Way to go Bushie!
Oh the advantages of being at an affiliate in Canada...
1) We all read the rest day discussions and nobody whines to anyone or calls anyone names
2) We have about 50% right wing military membership and 50% left wing ultimate frisbee playing membership, and we are a tighter group of people than college football team was
3) We all thank the Glassmans and their staff for their contributions to the fitness community with zero disclaimers, from the bottom of our hearts.
Greg and Lauren,
Have no worries about whether you rest day discussion topics have an effect on whether people will walk into an affiliate. If someone is going to throw out the method by which they are going to change their lives based on the political view of an article posted on a website, well they're probably not that interested in changing their lives.
blah blah right wing. blah blah liberal. I read about 4% of the article and it is boring. Politics and what not. I'm going to go play video games now.
UFC Undisputed 2009 for time
Here's something I heard from someone I respect: "Any and every choice you make will limit your market in some way".
I don't agree with the logic in most of the articles posted here, but I don't really care. If coach wants to post them, it's his Right. And I'll still come back because I am actually curious and willing to read opposing views. Unlike the people with rabbid pavlovian trigger reactions to the left or right, I try to hold judgement until all perspectives are known. The Dude Abides.
Although...it does sort of alienate half of the potential user-base.
Here's my point. If it alienates all of those people who aren't willing to put up with such views, then at the same time it cultivates people like me. Again, I vehemently disagree with the article, but I'm willing to put it aside and even think about the content.
And if over time the open-source method works, then it will all work out anyway. Coach might be limiting his market, but at the same time focusing it.
The political articles are informative and that's great. However, the way they seem to create a tension and sometimes outright anger between fellow Crossfitters really sucks.
I think I'll stick to discussing Crossfit on the boards and reserve the political chat between my family and friends.
Not as Rx'd...OD
45 L-PU's (C2B)
45 DH PU's (C2B)
45 Kipping PU's (C2B)
Run was on the treadmill @ 8.5, 9.0 last 800.
Maybe Nick should come up to the Korengal and try doing Murph up there..... His face might look a little different.
Travis Bagent??? I don't think so.
Try Devon Larratt!
Modest, quiet, a warrior heart, and Canadian
I was giving some thought to the statement some are making about these political views being detrimental to the spread of crossfit and how liberals/democrats may be reluctant to join a crossfit gym because of these views.
I’m not so sure that it’s as important as one would think and here is why. First liberals/democrats really have no need to be strong, fast and healthy. They will never need to draw on those qualities to save their own life or the lives of some else because that would go against their own philosophical values. You don’t need strength to pull a blanket over your head or burry your head in the sand.
Second if liberals/democrats have any desire for any fitness related activities that is why we have pilates and in those environments I believe they would be much more at home and able to relate to the other women in the class.
That is what is so great about this country there is something for everyone so we don’t really need to worry about if people will not feel welcome everywhere because there is always somewhere for them to go.
Certainly if I owned an affiliate I would welcome people of all political beliefs in my gym and I would give them the same level of service and attention that I would give to the men and women who live their lives with purpose and honor.
#118: if you had read the article--or my own post--you would know that actionable intelligence was produced, using methods that fell far short of waterboarding. If you are going to represent yourself as a member of the armed forces--and cast aspersions on their conduct during the Bush administration--ought you not at least to inform yourself to the level of having read the posted article?
I wanted to add, more generally: debate is the lifeblood and WORK of democracies. It is the opposite of lock-stepped, jack-booted conformity to a demogogue of one sort or another, or of full and complete indifference, which amounts to removing yourself from deserving a place at the table of self government.
You all need to understand that the Left, in lieu of mastering the process of thinking, has mastered the art of influencing thinking. Their initial premise is easy: they should be in complete charge, unfettered by "democracy", which we all know is rule by the Corporations, rather than them. Since they know better, only good things will come from their having obtained power. The only question is how to do it.
What is unquestionably one of their most effective propagandistic memes (a self propagating idea, something like an ideological nanobot) is that "nothing you do matters".
Debate, for example--which I have just said is the lifeblood of a healthy democratic Republic--is useless. They have their opinions, you have yours. Why argue?
Simple: one side is more right than the other, pretty much always, and even if this isn't the case, debate forces you to learn what other people think, how they think, and why they think the way they do. This expands the informational field within which you operate. It makes you more cosmopolitan, and less mired in a reflexive ideological swamp into which you were in effect dumped by an education that had that result as an explicit goal.
I am accused constantly by Pod People of being some sort of Rush Limbot. Funny thing is, I can explain and defend my views, and they can't. What I conclude from this, is they have been taught to accuse other people of conformity, while themselves being, ironically, the most emphatic practitioners of it.
Again, Alinsky 101: keep the pressure up. The content of the attacks doesn't matter, so much as their consistency.
Why resent the debate when you contribute nothing? Simple: you know damn well it may not go your way, and all the Leftists texts tell you to never subject your ideas to close scrutiny by someone who doesn't already agree with you.
Too much danger, you see, of ideological pollution. We can't have free thinkers running around, messing with what is a clear message like "Bush lied, people died". Next thing you know, they might actually be against us. Since we know we are right, everyone else is wrong. Since they are wrong, spouting their views is wrong, therefore they need to be suppressed by any means possible.
This is the logic of Totalitarianism. And at the risk of belaboring the obvious, both Obama and Hillary Clinton were huge fans of the man who I quoted above as advocating a Communist overthrow of our Constitutional system.
Again, the solution is for people to start using their damn brains, and that doesn't start from a principled rejection of civil engagement in the form of debate.
Why does everyone have to consider themselves either a liberal or a conservative? What a way to limit your worldview. Most politicians, both Democrat and Republican, are idiots, do you really want your view of the world to be determined by them? Its been a long time since I thought myself either right or left wing. The vast majority of Americans are like me in the middle, I'm sure many of you on here are too. Everyone should be discussing issues with an open perspective and coming here to learn things. We should be having a dialogue not an argument.
I try to watch varied news from both right and left wing sources and decide for myself. Most make me cringe at their absurdity (Moyer, O'Riley) but sometimes they have decent points. Everyone should be open and united in CrossFit, stop worrying about trying to get your point across and listen to each other.
Overall, don't bash on the military or say stuff like, "Please stop putting your right-wing, pro-military BS on this website. -SJ". We are the ones who give our lives, regardless of how you believe, please respect me and my brethren.
Barry, You assume in your comments that everyone in GTMO is guilty of wanting to kill americans. Since there were no trials and no opportunity to present evidence we have no way of knowing this. In some instances people have been held for years and then released, and there have been cases where the evidence against those being held is weak to non-existent. If 73% (better 100) were a "demonstrated threat" we should be able to demonstrate that in a court of law. That is why they exist. Trust the Justice system of the country, not imperialism.
GTMO is a symbol of an overarching problem, the circumstances there are not unique. Between black site prisons and extraordinary rendition getting someone tortured at the whim of the US was not an issue under Bush and is still possible now. Realistically closing it almost certainly will help the standing of the US in the world though.
To call the incidents at Abu-Graib an aberration crazy, the kubark manual outlining the same techniques for phycological torture has been in existence since 1963 and represents the work of McGill university Psychologists in the preceding time period. The CIA has used this manual for training and the techniques: hooding stripping beating etc have been present in Guatemala Honduras, Vietnam, Iran, Philippines, Chile, and Abu-Graib.
My best guess is the the 150+ waterboardings of two detainees in the course of a month was done with the goal, not of seeking truth, but of building a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. One that even Dick Cheney (despite innumerable insinuations in the past to the contrary) himself even admitted did not exist but a couple of days ago.
I think the reason that no actual accountability has happened is the democrats are just as guilty as republicans. The only way the rule of law means anything is if you enforce even for powerful people.
For me the real point is that we cannot be the same as the terrorists, we need to be better. We cannot torture, we cannot hold people indefinitely precisely because this is what they would do. We are a nation of laws not one build on fear, we give up a small measure of security for freedom. We undermine that freedom when we stray from our principles out of fear.
Thanks. Looks like I've got some reading to do.
Man, you commie's need to quit whinin'. You know today's a rest day. Why are you even lookin'?
#75 Funny: I believe you've proved my point in your response. Lincoln, while technically a Republican, can be applauded by Democrats today since, per your depiction, he really was a RINO and not a "real" Republican. Nice slide.
Indeed, my point is that Lincoln, FDR and Truman committed brave acts in the defense of liberty and human equality, and those acts are now sanctioned by Democrats since, after all, the acters were indeed (or de facto) Democrats. However, should others commit such acts with the support of the Republican party (Thomas a Republican-appointed justice, Rice a Republican-appointed Secretary, Lieberman siding with a Republican policy), they are roundly scorned by Democrats.
And easy with the jabs. I just washed this shirt last week.
It's clear that topics about politics and religion will always stir up the most heated debates, because both are about faith.
The things that the Bush administration did weren't the things that were necessary, but the things they BELIEVED to be necessary. Now Obama is doing the same thing. I'm not sure if his vision will work, but I think he can't do much worse than the administration before him.
What I find laughable in this debate is that those people who defend Gitmo would be the first to turn into little heaps of human misery if they had to endure three years in that facility.
And torture has never produced any valuable intelligence, not in the past and not in the present. The history books are full of people who died after confessing (under torture) to crimes which they have never done.
It's important for America to look confident into the future, but at the same time the politicians need to look back into history so that the same mistakes aren't repeated over and over.
World War Two and the rebuilding of Germany and Europe was a great success of the USA, but sadly none of the lessons learned during that time are applied anymore.
AMRAP 15 minutes
15 air squats
10 kettle bell swings (35lb)
completed 11 rounds
The article clearly stated that the POINT of Gitmo was to AVOID the widespread and unregulated use of torture. They clearly stated that EVERY use of it was microanalyzed, and that there was complete and full transparency. The opposite is precisely the sorts of renditions begun under (and not opposed by) Bill Clinton.
At Gitmo, we have a place where the rule of law is in place. These prisoners, as foreign nationals, clearly do not get the same rights and privileges Americans do. Moreover, that 72% figure refers to people we are SURE about. The remaining people are those we are reasonably sure about, and some may get released, after the detailed and lengthy review process is undergone, which we have implemented to protect their rights as human beings, if not Americans.
The simple fact is that the standards in place for conviction in American courts--which begin with a presumption of innocence, and place the burden on the prosecution--may get a lot of guilty people acquitted.
I'm curious: is your sense of self righteousness such that you would be willing to personally admit responsibility to the families of those killed by people you felt needed to be released?
What do-gooder leftists fail consistently to grasp is that Justice is about BOTH convicting the guilty, and releasing the innocent. To fail to imprison dangerous men is tantamount to complicity in the crimes they go on to commit.
With respect to Abu Ghraib, you need to get your fact straight. Nobody high up condoned those acts, and when they were discovered, they were stopped, and those responsible were disciplined. This is fact, not fantasy. The people in the pictures had been removed from their duties several months before the pictures were made public. No concrete good was accomplished by what those people did--it was stupid, and probably wrong (my understanding is some of those pictures were of child molesters, for whom few of us feel any sympathy)--but the fact is THE SYSTEM WORKED. Justice was done.
Finally, with respect to Iraq, that is a silly argument. There were many, many reasons to go to war with Iraq, and it no more and no less than propaganda to try and reduce our rationale to one or another reason, then pretend the others did not exist. Worse, to perform such an isolation on one rationale one day, and on another the next. This is simply disingenuous.
We went in because Hussein was in flagrant violation of international law, and specifically of the treat he signed upon the conclusion of the first war. We had every reason to suspect both that he was currently--or had plans to--develop nukes, and that he was financing international terrorism. He paid money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. His intelligence services supported Al Queda-like terror organizations throughout the region.
Hell, he hosted what can only be called a Conference of Terrorists in 2003.
He was, moreover, the ruler of one of the most despotic, horrific regimes on the planet.
Add to this the (correct, in my view) argument that part of the reason we were attacked was simply that we were perceived as unwilling and unable to respond effectively to threats to our nation, and you have quite a few reasons to go in.
There is every reason to believe that the research he had underway was exported to Syria, and that contention is supported by the nascent Syrian nuclear program the Israelis took out about a year ago.
And over and beyond this, there is every reason to believe he fully intended, post sanctions, to start everything up again. HE SAID SO HIMSELF WHEN HE WAS CAPTURED.
You are simply repeating Daily Cause propaganda. That won't fly here.
I went back to look at #75. Did you really say in the same post that Teddy started the Democratic Party, and "go study history"?
Healer: heal thyself.
25 wall ball
35 kb swings 35#
45 Box jump 24"
I could only read up to comment #71 before I couldn't stomach anymore...from either side. I was a gaurd down in Gitmo for 14 months. I have what CNN and Fox News has to say. I have read many articles posted all over the internet about Gitmo and all of the opinions that go along with them. But the true "torture" that goes on down there is to the gaurd staff. Most every one I know joined to defend this country against all enemies forgien and abroad...yet down there we gave the detainees almost everything they wanted. When the detainees acted up we were blamed for it, not the detainees, who were caught with weapons in hand fighting against American troops.
For those of you who think that the detainees in Gitmo are just "misunderstood". Think about it. Do you really think that the U.S. would really spend that amount of money, time, and attention getting those guys to Gitmo if they really weren't some bad guys. There are detention faculities over there...more then one and with a lot of less dangerous...dangerous none-the-less. But Gitmo houses the worst of the worst. For those of you who read the article and think that it is as black and white as 73% are dangerous and the others aren't...please reread the article. 73% are “a demonstrated threat”...it doesn't say the others are non-threats...they are not innocent by any stretch of the imagination.
As far as the treatment of the detainees down there...well the garuds called it the "Gitmo Hilton". From the time we got there to the time we left we are told about how hot of a "hot spot" Gitmo is and that we had to maintain a level of displine and profeesionalism the likes that no one has ever seen. And we did...and those still down there do.
All the propoganda you hear about how bad that place is...none of which has been proven with any and all the investigations that have goone on...is just that...PROPOGANDA! Guards are held to a very high standard...none of which allowed us to even curse at or say one negative thing to a detainee.
So as everyone discusses what happens in Gitmo...I would like to know where you get your information...CNN? FOXNEWS? Personal feelings? Or have you been there? I've been there and the news station do not and have not reported truthfully, honestly, or accurately as to what has gone on down there...but I know the truth isn't as juicy as the illusion of the idea that there is torture going on down there. Again it is the gaurds who are tortured both menatlly and physically.
Thank you Lauren and Greg for such an awesome / free source of information. I love the articles and the mental stimulation. Keep em coming.
Barry C. keep up the great work, you saved me a lot of typing....
Any use of torture is wrong.
We have a track record of convicting terrorists in this country, it can be done. I dont want to release guilty people, I would like to see them convicted, that is why we have courts. Yet again if we are SURE then convict them. Your implication is that the country that incarcerates the highest number of people in the world is too lenient and insufficient to deal with terrorists despite conviction of Timothy McVey and Jose Padilla and many others.
Name calling, labeling, and minimizing is no way to convince me of your point. Or care to actually have a meaningful discussion.
The highest levels did know about torture:
The argument about people released returning to terrorism is rather weak. the numbers have changed over time and counted in that number is a man who wrote a book about the treatment he received in US detention. I am not arguing that the number is 0 but I would be interesting is something more concrete.
Red Cross interviews with detainees:
Dont read Daily Kos, I like Glenn Greenwald generally though.
And now for something completely different!
I feel like doing something today so maybe some sprint intervals. Is there any reason not to do a workout that does not tax the core muscles as much as the wod's do on a rest day?
Thanks for propping up the new guy.
It would be cool if "constantly varied and functional" applied to rest day discussions as well. I'm just sayin'
Lots to talk about - really talk - without always drawing lines between saber rattlers & tree huggers. How about food security, government ownership of GM, desertification, China's artifically-indexed currency, global trade... it should all be in the hopper.
BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!! Where is the fitness talk?
I am struggling with my diet. I feel as if this is my goat. I love the work outs and come at them with high intensity. I get into the Zone and some how find my way back to sugars and carbs that just destroy me. I feel as if I have good self control (quit drinking) but there is just something missing. Suggestions anyone? Or do we just want to bicker back and forth about whos views are right and wrong?
Come on people. The last two rest days were Poetry and music. What more do you freaking want?
ARE ALL YOU POLITICAL MORONS TOO STUPID TO REALIZE SOMETHING? THINK ABOUT WHAT NEWBIES WILL THINK WHEN READING THIS DISCUSSION BOARD OF PEOPLE HATING ON EACH OTHER WITH NO RESPECT. WE ARE TURNING CROSSFIT OFF TO MANY. ARGUE RESPECTABLY. EXTREME LEFTISTS, EXTREME RIGHTEST, I SAY AGAIN, LET US STAND TOGETHER AND MEET PUKIE AND CAPTAIN RHABDO AT THE DOOR!!!!
Why is it every 3rd day we get people on here saying "No more political articles, etc."?
Look, the concept is simple. 3 days on, 1 day off. This never changes. If you don't want to read the articles, DON"T COME TO CROSSFIT.COM ON REST DAYS! It's not that hard to figure out when a rest day will be, so just don't visit the site on those days. If you really can't help yourself, just don't click on the article. Better yet, don't come to the comments section.
I don't agree with all the articles posted on here, but once in a while it is nice. Its good to see a little lean to the right for once. All the left wing news every where else on the net gets annoying.
Just do the rest of us a favor and stop complaining. It's not gonna change anything.
actually did a version of yesterday's wod.
cfwu x 3
800m, 10 pull ups, 30 50#DB swings
800m, 10 pull ups, 20 sit ups, 20 back extensions
800m, 10 pull ups, 20 squats, 20 push ups
Some of you guys are delusional if you think coercion techniques were used only under the Bush Administration. We have done this ever since the World Wars. And every intelligence committee has both democrats and republicans as members. So dream on if you vilify one party vs the other.
Crossfit Atlanta hosts Arm-Wrestling practice occasionally. We have a table, and have had local Wrestlers participate and instruct us technique. We were even visited and instructed by perennial top-three heavyweight, and general nice-guy, Ron Bath.
Ron's first attempt at a muscle-up was not only successfull, but also as slow and controlled as any I have ever seen. Impressive considering his 240+lb frame.
With a little instruction and caution, Arm wrestling is safe, but you will be sore in exciting new ways afterward.
kp...go to the message boards for advise.
run/PU "Salad", details there.
What can I do to increase shoulder flexability so that I can impove upon my overhead squats? My front and back squats are great. I just need to increase the range of motion for my shoulders so that I can hold the bar overhead without going forward. Any help would be great. Thanks.
Are you capable of engaging honestly? Do you think repeating the argument you used the last time, against someone who knew less than me, will work here?
I made the point that the POINT of Gitmo was to mitigate and control the use of torture. You ignored this.
No one denies that high levels of the government authorized coercive interrogation techniques. These techniques were run through a legal filter, to confirm there was a tenable legal basis for their use. This was covered in the article you apparently lack the integrity or attention span to read. House and Senate Democrats were briefed on, and did not object to these techniques, which were rarely used, and heavily monitored when they were.
You ignore the point--again, made in the article you are apparently too lazy to read--that the plan is to try the prisoners in military tribunals. As stated in the article, there simply isn't a template for enemy soldiers who belong to no nation, and therefore whose danger to society will last virtually forever. There is no armistice that can be signed. I think Bush handled this problem well.
For your part, you seem unable to grasp what was done, what is being done, or what is being planned. This makes you a classic "useful idiot", if you don't actually keep a copy of Graumsci by your bed.
You then add the commentary of prisoners, apparently in the naive or willfully disingenuous belief that these people don't lie, the commentary of sworn enemies of the United States on their treatment.
Do you people not realize that A PART OF THE TRAINING OF A TERRORIST IS THE USE OF PROPAGANDA?
If not, why not? They are told--were told, for example, in the training camps of Afghanistan--to lie about their treatment, no matter how good it was. This is not hypothetical. This is the testimony of people who went through this training.
And as far as people going back to terrorism: again, are you really sure you want to parade your incapacity to focus long enough to read a 5-6 page essay (if printed) in public? They detailed SPECIFIC people, by name, where they want, and what they did.
What do you have to offer beyond second rate, second hand commentary crafted in another context, for dumber people than you will find here?
I was enjoying the article up 'til the point where it started venerating the work of White House Legal Counsel John Woo. That guy makes me want to vomit worse than a double session of Barbara.
With respect to Abu Ghraib, I could care less what you believe. The FACT of the matter was those people were removed from their positions and disciplined MONTHS BEFORE THE STORY BROKE.
If what was done there was official policy, why would this have happened?
Does it not FEEL right to you? Are you just positive that the propaganda you eat like chocolate is so much better than the documented RECORD?
Do you ever stop to think about why you are so eager to believe ANYTHING negative you read or hear about people who are willing to sacrifice their lives for people like you, and reluctant to trust in their training, and innate decency?
You're on the wrong side. You're not on the side of the Good Guys. You are working, as a useful idiot, to get people tortured and killed. What your self image is, I could care less. I don't doubt it is quite positive to the point of narcissism. You are still wrong.
I have stated why. Why don't you read the article, then comment on it?
I had/have the same problem. I found that doing shoulder dislocations with a PVC pipe, rope, etc. helps a lot. Start out wide and then incrementally bring your hands closer together. Do it everyday after a little bit of a warmup and you will see a difference pretty quickly. Hope that helps.
WeemsFit #30: You’re on to something! The Rest Days (they should be called Brain Days) invite unregulated discussion. If you don’t like the article, feel free to tie it to some other article and comment on that. I go along with Nathan G #78 – the posted article was boring.
As WeemsFit suggested, anything from Bill Moyers would be an excellent example for a bait and switch comment. Left wing articles with even the pretense of rational thought are scarce, and Moyers pretends with regularity. But darn, this is not actually one of those rare articles -- it’s a bit of Hollywood.
Bill Moyers’ Journal is quite brief, providing a link where it can be viewed in three parts. He says,
>>The documentary TORTURING DEMOCRACY tells the story of how the United States government circumvented tradition and law to adopt torture as official policy.
Of course, the US did no such thing, and the “documentary” is a pure propaganda piece for Moyers’ summary, with a syrupy narration by Peter Coyote. Warning: lefties, like Moyers, and the naive will be seduced by it, HL&S.
Still, the movie is a Level 2 test of mental fitness to pick out the errors and inconsistencies. Take a shot. They are there in abundance. Maybe we can salvage this Rest Day and still be on topic. How many animals can you find in this picture?
“Fitness is about performing well at any and every task imaginable.” CrossFit Journal. And speaking of taking a shot, my very favorite scene from Raiders was the hooded Arab in black with a big red sash, tricking his sword in a fancy threat, dispatched with one shot by a bored Indiana Jones. Now Jones was most fit indeed!
Appending an unneeded to comment to Jeff's post: again, why do people like Bill Moyer's feel the need to lie? What prevents them from an honest engagement with the truth, as best they can determine it?
Is it the same thing that prevents people from putting out effort and work to engage with the topics posted on Rest Day? Is it, perhaps, simply easier to digest your news, after Momma Bird has already chewed on it for a while?
WORK, people. WORK AT THINKING. WORK AT ARGUING. If you can't find the time to do it here, or somewhere else, the time will come soon enough when ideological uniformity is mandated by law. We are depressingly close to that already, but the main manifestation, now, is simply excluding non-conforming views from the mainstream propaganda forums the left has created so painstakingly over the last 50 years.
The next logical step, though, is banning them outright, in the name, presumably, of free speech. Nancy Pelosi, for example, wanted to keep skeptics of the Anthropogenic Global Warming farce from speaking in the public sphere, if memory serves.
Stupid ideas only survive in hermetically sealed environments. That is the point of free speech. We need more of it.
Is the only good American a Republican?
I add, is the only good Marine a Republican?
As a former active duty Marine Sergeant, I have found myself in conflict over this question many times over the years.
Thanks for your post.
I live in East Tennessee, many of the conservatives/Republicans here are just as fact challenged and lacking in critical thinking skills as many of the liberals/Democrats (there are a few here). It goes both ways. In my part of the country, ignorance does not predominate in either political party, it seems spread pretty evenly over both. However, because of the sheer dominance and numbers of conservative Republicans in my area, I find myself cringing more often at the more blatant examples of publicly displayed ignorance by members of that party. About once a week I drive over the mountains to Asheville, NC and get to cringe at the more blatant examples of publicly displayed ignorance on the liberal/Democrat side of things. Maintains a balance.
On the flip side, luckily for me, there are many thoughtful, open minded, analytical, well read, and well spoken individuals representing both parties here as well. I thank God for every single one of them regardless of political affiliation.
I appreciate your post.
We have right-wing military ultimate frisbee players! No one told us it was left-wing. When almost everyone is right-wing, everything we do is right-wing, even left-wing ultimate frisbee.
Laughed reading your post.
yesterdays WOD - 30:30 I'm fried.
The most intelligent and perfectly timed comment today is without a doubt #92 Jon. Thanks for the laugh Bro. I'm with you.
F'in Beautiful Man! CROSSFIT FOR LIFE! Long live the WOD! Bring it tomorrow!
Barry, you have an odd infatuation with Saul Alinski. Having a leftist point of view doesn't mean that you're a radical Alinsky disciple dedicated to the overthrow of democracy.
Let me see if I got this straight:
Iraq's violation of international law is a reason for us to invade them full-force, but in this current war on terror in which we contrived a connection to Iraq, international law is not binding to the Executive Office of the United States because it's not our own Federal Law, whose definitions of "cruel" and "inhumane" we plugged into the torture convention and is are using to not only define terms but the reach of the treaty?
Alinsky provided, shall we say, a style. A style in which form trumps content--which in fact could care less about any content other than the acquisition of concrete political power, preferably masked as something benign and well intentioned,even though it founded on hatred.
Does this mean most people using Alinsky's methods have read him? Of course not. Most leftists don't have the faintest idea where they got their style from, or why they believe what they do. They were handed their beliefs like Union Cards upon entering school. Since truly critical engagement with content is, by definition, external to their system, the people who wake up do so virtually by chance, if in fact they ever do.
The very point of Alinsky's method is to indoctrinate people in hatred and irrationality while giving them the impression they are the compassionate, just ones, who--unlike the "enemy"--do in fact use reason.
To the precise extent, then, that people combine mocking hatred with an inability to defend their own views, they are Alinskyans. He never intended them to understand what was being done to them: merely to help him, and people like him (such as Obama) get and keep power. Agree with whatever you are told, then shut up. That's all he wanted.
That's also all Lenin, Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, Kim Jung Il, Pol Pot and many others wanted as well. Alinsky was a Communist. They were Communists. Why WOULDN'T they think the same?
With respect to law, I don't think we violated international law with respect to torture--as this article is at pains to point out, the prisoners at Gitmo are treated better than prisoners in American prisons--and with respect to Iraq, Hussein's violation of the law is what justified, legally, what we did. We hear, over and over and over, how it was illegal. It wasn't illegal. Bush had his green light before he ever went to the UN, and that they chose to ignore the law themselves in rejecting him, in no way changes this.
We went into Iraq, primarily, to reestablish American POLITICAL credibility (i.e. that we are actually capable of USING a military everyone knows is superior in POTENTIAL capability) and to prevent Hussein from developing, then threatening to use, and possibly even using, nuclear weapons. This would have destabilized the Middle East in a very bad way, and possibly led to either catastrophic death, or a general war.
This also allowed us a better platform from which to block Syrian and Iranian regional ambitions. In fact, they were scared to death, from what I can tell, for several years after the invasion. Iran put its nuclear program on hold, until the triumph of American failurism led them to conclude the threat was over. The Syrians become much more pliable with respect to Lebanon. The biggest problem there, now, from what I can tell, arises from the Iranian sponsored terrorists, who, again, went into remission for some time, before "waking up" again, and launching a war against Israel, which we know now was intended primarily for propaganda value.
i recently completed my level 1 at crossfit lineage in edmonton alberta,ca. i would like to thank most sincerely,
Todd, Andy, Stephane, Nadia and Curtis. It was a grounbreaking weekend packed with energy and severe exhaustion. I cannot wait until level 2 although i think i will.
Thank you crossfit, keep going hard!!!!
I have a similar flexibility opoortunity. PVC Pass throughs have helped. but what really helped is this. lay face down with your hands over your head. grasp the pvc in a close grip. Have a partner lift you up until you feel the stretch (gently!). Start with your forehead on the ground and gently press your body down as your partner lifts the PVC thus extending your arms back behind your head. (think full extension of your kip position in a pull up. Only parallel to the ground and your lumbar curve deactivated)
My flexibility issue though is in the bottom of my squat with short hamstrings. check that as well by squatting close to a bar or the wall with your hands up over your head. lower yourself until your hands touch the wall. Check your thighs for parallel, or use a box or medicine ball.
The other thing that has really helped me is focusing on the active shoulder. Take a little wider grip (at 6'0", I am almost out to the collars with my grip.) This additional leverage helps keep the bar behind the vertical plane naturally with good "active shoulders". If I relax my shoulder position the weight pitches forward. The sensation, to me, feels almost like I am pushing the collars away from each other.
resources from the journal: WFS links
Looks like I chose a particularly good day to abstain from rest day.
Instead did a variation of Bill Starr's "Holy Trinity" which I call "Holy Quadrophenia, Batman!"
Floor Power Cleans 5x5 135-155-165-175-185 (last set was 3-1-1, mostly due to lack of confidence)
Deadlift 5x3 315-365-375(2)-365-365
Bench Press 5x5 135-155-175-185-195
Back Squat 5x5 135-185-205-225-225
Prelim: 3 rounds OHS, hold bottom position for 10 secs., three reps, dowel-45-65-75; handstand and hold 20 secs, for last 5 secs or so my feet stopped touching the wall and I was free floatin' - soon to be free fallin'.
#54 Chas, #97 badnews - thanks for making the effort to comment so thoughtfully on the article.
My guess is Coach and Lauren can live without those who would reject CrossFit based on their dislike of the articles he chooses to post on his site. Affilitates - they pays their money and takes their chances. The best affils will have a site that keeps their clients off of this one anyway.
I don't like the name calling or pissing contests any more than anyone else - but love the chance to see how well I can represent my thoughts in a compressed and communication-challenged format like this one. It's a training ground like the WODs to both formulate and communicate one's opinion precisely - while not giving in to the temptations of anger, disgust, revulsion or whatever negative emotions lead to ad hominem and other attacks.
That said, there's plenty of folks who use the occasion to take an emotional dump. Makes it intellectually smelly - just have to wade through that to get to the good stuff ... like 54 and 97.
Is anyone else willing to think hard enough to recognize the issues this topic raises as regards law and order, limits on executive power, how to balance the need for defense of the Citizenry (second highest imperative of the executive branch after defending the rights of individuals), the very grey line between what is and is not torture, and consideration for how a 'good' executive branch would handle that question(irrespective of whether you do or don't like Bush/Obama/whomever). This topic is rich with significant issues to understand and dialogue over - well beyond whichever absurdly corrupted political party you don't like.
And as for that, OK, I get it, you don't like the other Americans (democrat or republican) whom you fear would gain control of the government and use it against you or against your wishes - no shit. Of course you don't. That's why the power of the Fed was to have been limited, and why it is bad for all of us that those limits have been perforated so frequently since the Constitution was signed.
While we're all crapping all over each other calling each other names, the politicians are winning.
The grand and pervasive power of the State is what we fight each other over, American v American - that much is obvious enough for even the partisans to see. That it has grown so great that we must have a visceral fear of the 'other side' gaining control - that is a shame. Paul
Didn't wod yesterday so went in today and made up this wod with partner:
10 OHS 45#
20 back sq 45#
30 push press 45#
20 GHD sit ups
22:22 with runs on t.m. Good one- FUN!
Come on now guys and gals! Everyone has a opinion on everything and it will always be different. I can't beleive how much bickering there is about what articles are being posted. If you don't like what the title of the article is then I have a SPLENDID idea for you. Don't click it. My personal opinion of it is that coach places those there to show his patriotism, and appreciation for every soldier over seas keeping this country free, whether they beleive in the cause or not. Don't click, don't read, don't bi***!!!
All is fair in love and WAR
I will bar no holds in defending my family against any threat, real or perceived. If the threat was real my and other families are safer. If the threat was perceived, well thats what happens when you look like a rabid dog and enter my house.
I will always shoot first and ask questions later. I don't care why you don't like me, I don't care what would make you appreciate my point of view.
I would not press my beliefs on you or attack you, verbally or physycally.
I am a right wing extremist and I am on the terrorist watch list just for being a Christian conservative. God, Family, Country.
Arm wrestlers doing cable cross-overs on the rest-day video... That's new.
This article reminds me of a Thomas Jefferson quote:
"From time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots."
The preservation of the liberties and freedom we all enjoy and take for granted comes with a price tag, nothing in life is free. Food for thought.
Stop trying to steal Lincoln.
Comment #116 - Posted by: matt/31
Matt, well said sir.
The goodness of better fitness pales in comparison to being passionate about liberty. Coach and Lauren have been saying, for years, "I care about liberty and truth enough to risk my fitness business to speak my best truth."
Would we respect them as much if they didn't have the courage of that conviction? Never mind the fact that if they didn't have that sort of courage, they would never have been able to bring CF to where it is now. Paul
Coach certainly can post anything he wants since this is his site. It does disappoint a good portion of crossfit practitioners though. He reserves the right to piss off half of his business if he wants. Yet it seems some have this idea that we should all agree with even his political positions or never use his site or just leave the country. LOL. Freedom of speech applies to everyone, not just the coach. With that said, I doubt that it is unAmerican to agree with an American president though. And if one does agree its odd to ask them to leave the country.
Comment #77 - Posted by: Just saying
Funny, never get tired of being reminded of that one.
Michael and all the others that can't discern the what 'freedom of speech' really applies to -
It's a constitutional protection designed to limit the federal govt from interfering with the right, endowed to you by your creator, to say what you would like (with the caveat that what you say does not infringe the rights of your fellow citizens - e.g. slander or libel - or cause injury to them e.g. yelling 'fire' in a theater).
The 'right to free speech' does not restrain me, or you, or any citizen, from 'yelling', in a pique of childish anger, to shut the frock up.
Freedom of speech - it's about freedom from the imposition of the STATE on us individuals. Using the term in, for example, Michael's context in comment 177, reveals the depth of ignorance of the commenter. Paul
Interesting how the premise of Crossfit, constantly varied, changing, and functional exercises to not apply in equal measures to the articles posted on this site. The workouts? Varied, unpredictable, and constantly challenging to the body. The articles? Biased, one sided, and preaching to the choir for most here. Kudos to coach for the fitness, but shame on him for the articles.
wow...as a newbie to crossfit, I thought this was all about fitness. Now it seems to be Crossfit is about Groupthink and brainwashing. I no longer feel comfortable in this "community" and will be taking my money and my fitness goals elsewhere. Goodbye to the nice people I met here who are actually focused on fitness.
"I think my favourite part was the indignant assertion that torture had only been applied to exactly three suspects. Well I guess that makes it swell. I mean, Lee Harvey Oswald only shot one president but other than that he was apparently a good guy." Comment #77 - Posted by: Just saying
Justsaying - kindly define torture.
What you are asserting is that if someone tackles this tedious definition differently than you, they are committing a crime equivalent to assasinating a President. Is this sort of moral relativism something you really advocate?
What is or is not justifiable use of force by the State is an extremely important topic - worthy of sober consideration. I don't think that sort of approach, whether you have a weak sense of conscience or are just sloppy in your advocacy, is worthy of the debate on this significant and important topic. Paul
I'll not be posting for a few days, but will comment that the post by Diane, at #181, is precisely what I have been describing. She has been brainwashed to think she has not been brainwashed. How do you tell the difference? Simple: is someone, or they not, capable of rational discourse? Are they capable of stating clear views, then defending them from criticism?
Are they able, in short, to show in some way that their ideas were not surgically grafted on to their brains? Are they alive, and evolving, or are they grateful at having finally been able to jettison the painful burden of independent thinking?
The uniforms of the "counter culture" have stronger claims on the minds of their members, than the uniforms of our armed forces, which come with all sorts of views. They fight for that right, and in general value it much more than those who would deny that anything but craven submission is an acceptable form of foreign policy.
What the hell has happened here? Umm...correct me if I'm wrong, but this is CROSSFIT, right? What's with all the BS political discussions. Take it to a political website, this is a fitness site.
#181, Diane leaving is a perfect example of driving people away from Crossfit due to politics and acting like children here.
#183, Barry Cooper, your elitist assumptions and conclusion-jumping are unwarranted and disgusting. That kind of stuff is precisely what is wrong with mixing politics and fitness.
For the rest of the normal crossfitters out there, doing anything on this "rest day" besides resting? I'm thinking of going for a nice hike myself.
#181 Diane - I certainly don't agree with a lot of the posts on here, but that has not stopped me from gleaning tremendous value, both physically and intellectually from what the site has to offer.
I would just say that not everyone here is like Barry who will accuse you of being brainwashed, a lefty, and blame the BeeGees on you just for the sin of not agreeing with everything he says.
There a lot of really intelligent, thoughtful, helpful, and considerate people on here, many of whom might hold different beliefs than you, but who are able to carry on reasonable discussions without stooping to vitriol.
And at the end of the day, people like Barry are essentially harmless, they just type a lot of repetitive noise. You don't have to read it if it offends you.
I find that weeding through posts like his to be well worth the effort. And hey, sometimes he calms down enough to make an interesting point. Just my opinion of course. Good luck to you though whatever you choose to do!
I hate this political crap. It is the only discussion that comes between true crossfitters. Name calling. Is Freddy a Democrat? Brian? Does it matter?
Mr. Glassman please.Your children are fighting. Teach them to behave or stop inflaming them.
Like everything on the net, take what you like and discard the rest. Its just written words.
If your so sensitive there is a pilates class in need of a new member. Good luck with your fitness endeavors.
via con dios
#188 Rob, you do realize that pilates was created by a man to help rehabilitate veterans returning from war, right? Maybe you should learn a little history about it and try it before knocking it. It's not for the "sensitive", speaking of which, it appears you are quite sensitive to any comments criticizing political articles on crossfit. Have you checked into quilting? That might be more up your alley.
My time is pretty long and im still not done with this WOD yet:
rest day as rx'd
17 hrs 54 min 43 sec (and counting)
"It makes you more cosmopolitan, and less mired in a reflexive ideological swamp into which you were in effect dumped by an education that had that result as an explicit goal."
Barry - surely you don't mean that the State (with its coercive monopoly on compulsory primary education) doesn't want it's attendees to understand what self government really means? You mean there might be a conflict of interest in between educating and controlling the subjects ... I mean citizens ... of this great nation? Paul
You mean a politician didn't do something that he promised to do?
Atlas Shrugged took me 3 weeks the 1st time. 3-4 weeks the next 3 times.
"Realistically closing it almost certainly will help the standing of the US in the world though." Comment #129 - Posted by: Ian Mosher
Ian, in the midst of an otherwise thoughtful post, how can you possibly characterize 'standing in the world'?
In who's eyes?
How would that be measured?
Why should I or any other American care?
What possible benefit could we gain from trying to be 'popular' with foreigners, or their governments, when we know they will use our pandering to their interests and not to ours?
How would we even pretend to know what to do or say to be popular with more 'citizens of the world' than we are now? Which ones do we even want to be more popular with?
In 'nations' there are no friends, only interests. The US govt has common interests with other governments. How is a bunch of a$$ kissing going to change that for better or for worse?
'People' or 'nations' or whomever you are concerned with both fear and respect power. They pity weakness. When dealing with powerful or weak, governments seek to advance their own interest, regardless of the 'needs' of the others.
This talk of world standing is complete gibberish ... unless you can explain it. Open my eyes - if you can put a context to that issue that makes sense, I'll owe you. Paul
Well thanks Paul for the comment on my ignorance in #179. I was referring to the "freedom of speech" comments through out this discussion referring to Coach having his rights to freedom of speech. I do appreciate the clarification and agree with the specifics of definition.
My point was a response to those who were criticizing others for offering dissent of Coach's political offerings. There was an absurd defense that freedom of speech was involved with it. It was a response so I can't take credit for "freedom of speech" used in this context. This idea that one must either comply with their political viewpoint or leave the country is absurd and I was pointing it out. Wouldn't you agree?
#194, well said Michael!!! :)
A lot of people think they know how to run the world. That's why the bathtub this pissing contest is occurring in is overflowing with dark, steamy, asparagus and broccoli smelling urine. Here's a WOD to bring you up to a level of political fitness to hang with the dawgs that actually do run the world:
As many rounds in 4 years of:
Duck 20 high velocity shoes thrown at your head
Frolic with an intern
Expose one of your own country's spies
Waterboard 4 people
Be waterboarded yourself 4 times
Say "nukulur" instead of nuclear 30 times
Get at the top of a naked human pyramid with a bag over your head
Be illegally influenced by an industrial complex lobbyist
Ignore scientific evidence
Sell a senate seat
Give 3 vague, circuitous, or misleading press conferences
Subvert a sovereign government, democratic or otherwise
Waste 1 million dollars
Break 8 campaign promises
Post rounds completed and intelligence gathered to comments.
Good stuff. At 6'4" I find that my hands are at the collars (what do people who are 6'8" do?...). Your post reminded me that when I was learning OH squats I was told to try and rip the bar apart, I have found this really helps to increase engagement on the shoulders and back. When I start to feel my form fading I think about this and things fall back in line pretty quickly. I suck at OH squats but absolutely love them... Good to see fitness related posts.
Comment #181 - Posted by: Diane 5'1"
Diane - we'll miss you a lot, kind of like when a hand is removed from a water bucket, 60s later you can't tell anything was ever there.
CFE- run 15min - 2 miles.
# 196 tonf:
Well played, sir. [Golf clap].
Yikes, it is these sorts of comments from people on this site that gives Crossfit a bad name. No sense of civility or humanity. Sometimes it's hard to believe that these posts are from adults and not children.
Grace with 95lbs - 10:45
yesterday's WOD scaled down to the BrandX porch version
Run 800m (all were treadmill runs)
20 L pull-ups
30 strict pull-ups
40 kipping pull-ups
Time - 22:16
first time doing it since the nice weather's been back. My PR from the end of last summer is 14:15, which means my running has improved!
You my friend are obviously a d1ck.
I mean chivalry demands that you bar the door and demand that are poor, poor, Diane ,who is obviously suffering from the vapors, remain with in the crossfit community. Nay demand that she stay. Her contribution both fiscally, mentally and physically to the community cannot be matched. For the good of all humanity and the salvation of crossfit please do not let her leave.
Oh wait a minute...what's that...Oh my bad. Turns out she's not THAT Diane.
Here's your bag, no hurry but there's the door now hit the bricks.
Push Press 115
10 x 100 Meter Sprints at 45 degree angle uphill
I will be out in the open. I am very conservative. I'm going to Marine Corps OCS when I graduate college. Reading these commentaries about the posted article show that there are very contrasting opinions out there. But, as a conservative, and an advocate of standing up for constitutional rights, I respect that people have contrasting opinions to mine. I'll admit that anyone who still thinks GITMO is a torture camp after reading the article (if you actually read it) is a moron. But, whoever you are, you are entitled to your opinion and I stand up for that right 100%. I just don't agree with you.
However, in post #10 someone said to "stop putting your right-wing, pro-military BS on this website." Whoever you are, if you don't like what is on this site then don't come to it. You may not agree with the fact that this link was posted, but respect that fact that someone has different views than the ones you have. Believe it or not, if everyone liked the same thing and thought the same way, this world would be a pretty boring place. I, for instance, think that the liberal way of thinking is the most bogus, outrageous mindset ever created. But some people think that way. Some people believe liberal ideals. I think liberals are morons & liberals probably think I'm a moron. What I'm getting at here is respect that people have differing opinions, even though you may not agree with them.
Now lets end the political talk and focus on the next WOD. Go CrossFit!
Last month the Government Accountability Office issued a shocking report on "selected cases of death and abuse"--not at Guantanamo Bay or other detention facilities for terrorists, but at schools for American children:
GAO also examined the details of 10 restraint and seclusion cases in which there was a criminal conviction, a finding of civil or administrative liability, or a large financial settlement. The cases share the following common themes: they involved children with disabilities who were restrained and secluded, often in cases where they were not physically aggressive and their parents did not give consent; restraints that block air to the lungs can be deadly; teachers and staff in the cases were often not trained on the use of seclusions and restraints; and teachers and staff from at least 5 of the 10 cases continue to be employed as educators.
The 10 cases involved children ranging in age from 4 to 14, and eight of the cases occurred at government schools. Here is just a sample:
At a public school in West Virginia, a 4-year-old girl with cerebral palsy and autism "was 'uncooperative,' so teachers restrained her in a chair with multiple leather straps that resembled a 'miniature electric chair.' " The girl was later diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder. "At least one of the three teachers responsible" is still at the school.
At a Texas public school, a 230-pound "special education teacher" placed a 129-pound boy of 14 "into a prone restraint and lay on top of him because he would not stay seated." The student died. The case was ruled a homicide but no charges were filed. The teacher "currently teaches in Virginia and is licensed to instruct children with disabilities."
n a California public school, the teacher of a 7-year-old autistic girl "secluded child in a walled off area because she refused to do work, sat on top of her because she was wiggling a loose tooth, and repeatedly restrained and abused her." The teacher "left the school but began teaching again in a different school district."
"GAO could not determine whether allegations were widespread," the report disclaims, but it makes clear they are more widespread than just the 10 cited cases:
GAO did find hundreds of cases of alleged abuse and death related to the use of these methods on school children during the past two decades. Examples of these cases include a 7 year old purportedly dying after being held face down for hours by school staff, 5 year olds allegedly being tied to chairs with bungee cords and duct tape by their teacher and suffering broken arms and bloody noses, and a 13 year old reportedly hanging himself in a seclusion room after prolonged confinement.
When the report came out on May 19, we figured it would be a good opportunity to find common ground with politicians and commentators who've been complaining for years about the "torture" of terrorists. We figured President Obama would issue an executive order banning torture in schools, the New York Times would publish an indignant editorial, Dick Durbin would take to the Senate floor to declare that the teachers unions remind him of the Gestapo, and that nut who writes for The Atlantic would proclaim himself "shocked to the core."
We were going to respond by saying that although we think there are circumstances under which it is justifiable to treat terrorists roughly, all good people can agree that torturing schoolchildren is categorically wrong. But we didn't have anything to respond to. As far as we are aware, the GAO's findings have been greeted with silence by the leading self-proclaimed "torture" opponents--though Education Secretary Arne Duncan did tepidly promise "he will ask state school chiefs around the country about the use of restraints and confinement of pupils in the classroom," according to the Associated Press.
Where's the outrage? Could it be that all the complaining about "torture" was but a pretext for some less noble agenda?
God Bless America, God Bless the 2nd Amendment, God Bless Dubya, and God Bless Crossfit!
NICKY BOOOOOOOMS! e-mail me
#134 - "This is the Glassmans' pulpit... Hey if they're this right about fitness I'll certainly listen to their ideas about other stuff too."
I am a registered Republican who considers himself fairly moderate, but this is the scary thing about the rest day articles. Some people believe that simply because the founders of CF have hit on something revolutionary in the fitness world, they must be right about everything else, politics included. That's like saying, "Damn, that Sean Penn knows a lot about acting, he must be dead on about his politics as well."
THINK FOR YOURSELF. I'm not saying don't read the rest day articles, but read from other sources as well. Anyone that thinks the rest day articles are balanced is kidding themselves. Everyone on here agrees that CrossFit is an effecive and brilliant fitness plan. That does not mean that the continual right-wing political articles posted here MUST be correct as well.
And jeez, give people a little more credit. Every Republican is not a tobacco-chewing hillbilly, and every Democrat does not follow around the Grateful Dead and eat tofu. People are a little more complex than that.
I have a few for questions for you:
1. Did any of the people mentioned in your posts who were convicted of restraint and seclusion offenses get prior authorization from the President or have the benefit of legal advice from the DOJ before carrying out what turned out to unlawful conduct?
2. You mentioned these people were convicted of crimes. Does that mean that what they did was illegal according to some law (according to Bush and his lawyers waterboarding was not illegal)? It seems to me you have compared apples with oranges.
3. Why would Obama or Bush or King Leopold issue an executive order banning something (torture in schools) when that thing was already punishable by imprisonment? Apples and oranges again. You see, according top Bush et al., waterboarding carried out by the state is punishable by nothing.
4. Could it be that much of "the complaining about torture" is directed at the fact that the relevant acts of torture were authorized by the Executive branch and its elected head, and that this raises the possibility that the Executive counseled illegal conduct of a kind we have thought utterly abhorrent since at least Nuremberg? If you want to deal with apples and apples, why don't you find a case where the President authorized torture against children in schools and then neither the President nor the torturers were prosecuted, and where the President believed that torturing the children was not illegal.
5. Was your point that no one should be outraged by the likelihood that torture offenses were committed by US interrogators and their superiors (i.e., waterboarding KSM 183 times in 30 days)? Or was it that those who are outraged by that type of torture should be similarly outraged by the torture of children in schools....and, if they are not similarly outraged....then their outrage at the torture committed by interrogators is invalid? phony? hollow? unfounded? something to be dismissed over a set of HSPUs and a jack and soda?
The issue, Jakers, is that elected and unelected officials allegedly counseled, ordered, and carried out acts of torture, and are claiming that the acts of torture were neither torture nor illegal. This issue raises constitutional issues. If the guy down the street tortures and the cops catch him, he goes to jail, just like if a teacher tortures at school and the cops catch him, he goes to jail. How about if a bona fide government interrogator waterboards someone 80 times in 30 days and the cops never go after him, or the bona fida government officials who counseled, aided or abetted the torturing? Does that upset you? I think it upsets a lot of people. When a crime is committed by a garden variety criminal it is an offence against the individual victim and to public order. When a crime is committed by a government official it is a crime against the individual victims and public order, but it also undermines the very foundation on which that public order exists, it threatens the possibility that lawful order can continue. The first offense offends morality and decency, the second jeopardizes the rights of Americans as citizens and is a matter of national concern.
I agree. Tofu - great. Greatful Dead - unlistenable.
"Left wing articles with even the pretense of rational thought are scarce..."
Why this dung? Really? How does this move the ball one foot down the field? How does this increase your mental work capacity over time, or anyone else's for that matter?
I know. I could go elsewhere. I could join Diane.
Tried to get through all of the posts but half way through the fourth Barry Cooper essay decided
(nothing personal Barry, that was just the point I got to - you argue very well although, you get a little more insulting than I think you need to given how well thought through your arguments are)
either way, I'm Australian so don't suffer from the same liberal vs conservative dogma.
- I don't like the idea of torturing people, but can't imagine having to manage and hold people with vastly lower values of decency than I have
- I hate the idea of people being held for years and years without trial, but I also can't imagine letting just one terrorist f*ck free who we couldn't prove things against, even if it meant 99 innocent men going free too.
They are tough arguments for me, less so for other people. I do think though, that on balance, I trust Obama to handle strategy more than I trusted Bush.
Seriously? Just...wow. What is wrong with some of these people. Are you all TRYING to run people off? So much for being inclusive.
That's quite a list you have there for God to Bless!
subd L for high knee
800's on treadmill
If the rest day articles were "driving off half of coaches customers" then wouldnt there be a hell of lot fewer of you whining liberals around here??
if liberals whine when they don't like something...what is the verb for conservatives? Something manly like "object" or "protest"?
interested in your considered view.
Thank you for caring so little about Americans, children no less, and so much more about the people who want to end them.
Did you even read the article? It states how the govt went thru great lengths to stay within "the rules" in a situation and a people where none really existed. You can hardly fault people for making mistake when foraging new ground. Further and the "breaking news" was already being corrected and investigated internally when it broke.
Jaker's example however is different in that there are laws in place that are flagrantly being broken and the govt, now due to this report knowingly, allows to continue (satisfing your #4). These are public schools which mean they are govt run just as much as the military is.
Prole, if you have dealt which public schools at all they have a ton of ways to squirm and deny and lie when something goes bad under their watch. If a child is in a bad situation, and a parent chooses to protest, an investagation ONLY happens if the child is left said situation so it can be "evaluated" for up to 90 days. WTF. Would you leave your child is the situations jakers provided while it was evaluated? Parents do what is right for their kids and don't let them return, hence these teachers/torturers get to continue.
Our public schools, especially within the realm of spec. ed. are a dark hallway and students certainly aren't treated as well as thse at Gitmo.
But thank you Prole you've done a great job showing me how the Left can turn its back on when something isn't the cause de jour and how it can justify not standing up for the very thing it claims to represent. Hypocritical.
That bit of what you call dung was actually a gauntlet thrown down especially for the Proles here. When you disagree with a point, you’re sure to tell us you disagree. Won’t you go one step further and tell us why? If you have sources for left wing articles that are rational and freely available (no subscriptions), I’d be more than willing to check them out. I’d bet that Barry, Apolloswabbie, and Goat would be pleased to respond, too.
If you have a long list, as might be your style, of such sources, please prioritize it. If you don’t, I’ll assume the first on your list is your best source and most representative for being rational.
I’ll give your list a fair shake, and if I find that sources of rational thought from the left are accessible, I’ll retract my observation that they aren’t, and apologize.
If your list includes Media Matters, moveon.org, Huffington Post, New York Times, this is going to be easy.
Otherwise, say hello to Diane.
73 percent of Gitmo detainees were “a demonstrated threat” to Americans
What about the other 27%? Are they threats to other people? What are they imprisoned for? Thoughtcrimes?
Seriously, locking people up who haven't done anything but think about a subject is just simply wrong and extremely un-American, and perpetuating such a program is not patriotic in any way. The other 27%, who are they, what did they do to deserve to be imprisoned for so long? Oh, and what is Obama doing about this? Not much other than saying he's closing it down, but where are these detainees going to go?
Only a trial for each individual will rectify this situation and clear the air. No trial? WHY NOT? There's a teenage kid sitting in jail for piracy, picked up in international waters. Anyone can be tried, but the government has to be willing to conduct the trial.
Why can't they be tried? They're in jail on circumstance or hearsay, or is there actual evidence linking this 27% to terrorist activities? And if they are indeed linked, then the number should be 100% incarceration for being a threat to Americans and not just the "C" average number of 73%.
This one is for you (admittedly self indulgent) but, when you come across a bully, or a group of bullies who want to get back into government, you need to take pains to point out the truth.
I didn't show you anything about the "Left". What is the "Left"?
I did not make a single comment in defence of any or all schools or their employees.
What you call a guantlet was bull.
To say I do not tell you why I disagree with the things I disagree with is patently absurd. For instance in my earlier post I gave several reasons why I think that torture in schools is different that torture by government interrigators. Just as last rest day I gave a number of reasons why I think the waterboarding of detainees is something different from waterboarding in SERE training. I even numbered my points for ease of reading.
Last day in a response to me you wrote: “Sometimes you’re a radical and sometimes, such as when we can pin you down to actually adopt a specific position, surprisingly not.”
Now what you want to "pin me down to" is not a specific position, but a declaration of loyalty. As far as positions go, lets consider the following positions that I set out today (clearly if I may say so myself):
1. The analogy between unlawful and prosecuted torture occurring in schools and lawful unprosecuted torture by interrogators does not fit, and does not support the proposition that because some people are outraged by torture by interrogators and not by torture in schools, their objection to torture by interrogators is unfounded or illegitimate.
2. Crimes committed by elected and unelected officials undermine public order and the foundations of the social contract in ways that crimes committed by private citizens against other private citizens do not.
And last rest day:
1. A number of Bill Whittle’s arguments with respect to Truman’s culpability as a war criminal were irrelevant, and some were relevant.
2. He should have discussed the anticipated cold war with the USSR.
3. To provide a fuller contemporary Amecian context he might have mentioned General MacArthur’s view on dropping the bombs.
4. My overall intention was to try to weed out the BS early on in the discussion so that it might be productive.
5. It is unseemly for Democrats who had a role to play in waterboarding by American interrogators to now pursue Republicans as though they have clean hands. They should all be pursued.
6. Military and national security efficacy is in important respects less important for the protection of American liberties than the actions of individual Americans asserting and guarding those liberties against encroachment by their own government.
7. The idea that the ends justifies the means, and that detainees should have no or minimal rights against torture until placed in civilian authority hands would justify crimes that were punished in the war crimes trials after WWII.
Post 182 and 187
8. The reason waterboarding in the SERE program is not torture is because it is missing several of the key elements of the definition of torture in 18 USC s 2340 (I provided specific evidence of this – the request that I do so on a web forum was a little silly, but I complied).
Posts 193 and 198 and 207.
9. The definition of torture is not unconstitutionally vague. In an attempt to explain why that is the case I referred you to other statutory provisions dealing with inflicting harm that might seem even more likely to be found vague that would 18 USC s 2340 , but are not (some free legal advice for you should you consider challenging your next traffic infraction on the grounds that the applicable law is vague).
10. When you call me or my opinions a “radical” I think what you mean to say is that you don’t like me or my opinions because by my opinions are not “radical” but fall squarely within a very establishment strain of thinking that that has developed and become ever increasingly integrated with Anglo-American laws and governments since at least 1688.
11. Whether a criminal is a Democrat or Republican is irrelevant to whether they should be prosecuted for their criminal conduct. If trials are not possible (or desirable) the truth, through some public process (subject to appropriately definednational-security concerns) should come out.
Now you will complain I have been too long providing “specifics” to your vague and baseless charge. Barry, what would Alinsky have to say about Jeff’s (and your manner of “argumentation”)?: “Bravo!”
Also...The prisoners in no way fit the standard of “lawful combatant” as defined by the Geneva Convention’s Common Article 3 and therefore could not automatically be accorded the treatment the Convention required.
Why would they be taken prisoner then? If they are not 'lawful combatants', then just line them up, right? If that is the way the United States is going to conduct war, well do it then, but don't pretend to afford someone the courtesy of indefinite imprisonment versus outright death by hiding behind the concept of 'lawful combatants' and expect people to like it because you claim you are protecting our freedom.
Comment #138 - Posted by: GitmoGuard
Thanks for your story, it needed to be told.
Moreover, thanks for the job you did there. Paul
Comment #186 - Posted by: Greg Teagarden
Greg, you are wrong, look at the history, this is what we do here every fourth day. It's been going on for a long time.
"This idea that one must either comply with their political viewpoint or leave the country is absurd and I was pointing it out. Wouldn't you agree?"
Michael, I think I get your point. However, folks who speak like that are mainly expressing anger or exasperation - so their points are nearly always not bound by logic. Sometimes, anger gets the best of us.
I appreciate your response. Paul
Comment #198 - Posted by: tonf
Tonf, I like your style, keep it up.
Comment #203 - Posted by: Carrie
OK, you are saying you don't like my comment? I can live with that.
Why would you respond to my comment vice Diane's petulant middle finger raise? My comment was simple, utterly true, and only slightly sarcastic. I could have been far more childish, even more so than she was.
This board is not here so folks can be bland, blunted and nice.
That said - why do you think this board exists? Why do you think Coach and Lauren choose this approach? Would you care to respond to my earlier post on this topic (#171)? Paul
Comment #216 - Posted by: Prole
Interesting tack, but you miss. His post was sarcasm, and illustrated a fantastic point, which is that the 'great protest' on the part of the opposition party had as little to do with soulful concern about the issues as the two cases have to do with each other. His point was that the political opposition was so intent on winning that it would say whatever it needed to attack the incumbent. That's what political opposition does, of course, and then stooges like us sit around and defend them like the pawns we are.
If you or I are invested in, and identify with, and trust he intentions of a political party, we are by definition the 'mind numbed robots' or 'zombies' of reference. While we piss on each other, they win by trading us something we want in exchange for the liberty we're too ignorant to know we're trading.
Your passion and compassion are clearly genuine. Even a guy like me can see that. The politicians make us all into idiots. Paul
Prole:"I did not make a single comment in defence of any or all schools or their employees."
Of course you didn't. You showed complete indifference, after all it isn't your current cause. Every single on of you points to jakers brought up legality and who authorized what.
Not one mention of morals.
Of course when Gitmo is mentioned it's all about morals and ethics as law are not sufficient.
Hence the hypocracy.
Comment #226 - Posted by: James Humphrey, Jr.
#226 posts later, you ask the great questions which naturally arise from this type of article if one can avoid being sucked into the "my party good your party bad" vortex long enough to think clearly. Well done sir. Paul
Comment #216 - Posted by: Prole
Strong post but missing one critical element - define torture.
Not provide a legal definition.
Is it really that simple a matter to say what constitutes torture and what is or isn't a war crime? Does intent matter, as it does in murder cases? Does due process matter as it does in capital punishment?
If you assume the conclusion - what the other party did was torture - then your logic falls into place well. But it completely misses the mark for anyone who's not will to conclude that waterboarding is torture because you assume it is.
#227 - Prole, I see that you made reference to the definition of torture, retract my last challenge, if you please. I'll find 18 USC s 2340. I doubt it will clear any thing up - but if I'm wrong I'll learn more than if I'm right. Paul
Comment #216 - Prole at 9:19 PM
Sorry I consider questions 1-4 strawman arguments. As we use to say back home Its like looking for fly sh1t in the pepper shaker. (If you don't know what fly crap looks like look on your window sill. Looks like ground black pepper.)Really just not interested. Real torture involves a trenching tool, a blow torch or something you might see in a "Saw" movie.
Question 5 kind of exposes you. You should be outraged by the torture of children who are every bit as under the control of the state for 8 hours a day as the detainees in Gitmo.
Are you saying we should value a Terrorist as much as we do a child? I don't. The kid is one of us and no matter how you slice I value us more than them. My standard critique of liberals applies, "In an 'Us' vs 'Them' conflict liberals will always side with 'Them' while claiming all the rights and privileges afforded to the 'Us'"
>>>>>Or was it that those who are outraged by that type of torture should be similarly outraged by the torture of children in schools....and, if they are not similarly outraged....then their outrage at the torture committed by interrogators is invalid? phony? hollow? unfounded? something to be dismissed over a set of HSPUs and a jack and soda?
It is invalid, phony, hollow, unfounded at to be dismissed with much less effort than a set of HSPUs. I certainly wouldn't exert any more effort than the jack and coke to dismiss their affectation of outrage.
Also do you consider teachers garden variety criminals are do they have special fiduciary duty as executives of the state towards the wards they are assigned?
To answer my own question earlier, I don't think that waterboarding is always torture. It certainly could be used as torture. But if the State can ever be justified in using deadly force in the defense of the Citizen, if we can shoot a guy down in the street for not paying his/her taxes or for putting a substance we don't like in his/her body, then there can hardly be any argment that water boarding - which leaves the body unharmed - is justifiable in defense of the citizenry.
I can understand and even respect the opinions of those who would say they oppose waterboarding of the enemy for any reason. It is a fearsome tool in the hands of the State, and therefore should get serious consideration. I think the terms in which it was used, as described in the article, are at least as justifiable as any other act of war. Paul
The owner will post as "coach". Jeff is Coach's Dad.
And instead of being appalled and asking for your fainting sofa to be fetched, why not contribute and post an article that is liberal and utilizes rational thought.
I don't think you will post such an article because it's like finding chicken lips.
Say hi to Diane on your way out the door.
Casually pontificating on a fitness website on a "Rest Day" that waterboarding is not torture, or that it is torture, but the state is justified in carrying it out.....is revolting.
What alarms me most is the complete lack of empathy. Do you really know what it's like to see your feet and legs swell to twice their normal size from endless stress positions? Have you experienced the exquisite pain of the resultant blisters? Been hooded, scared, naked, tied to a horizontal board and made to feel like you are going to drown, with no control at all over your surroundings? To beg that it stop and be ignored. To hear the bucket fill again, as you cry and plead for your life? Oh, these people are terrorists. Right. Says who? Look at the Skipton 3, released from Gitmo because they were completely innocent. They only got out because they were British. You don't think the apparatus of state gets things wrong? Hell, they've been finding people on death row in the US - that'd be after all the bells and whistles of a full criminal trial - innocent, for years. Oft times after the execution.
I guess if someone lives in Iowa they don't need to give a rat's. Different for many around the world who have come up against oppressive regimes at close quarters and for whom abuse of state power is actually something which might affect their families. Which is why many of the posts above are just shameful. There's no other word for it.
On a separate note, the eager foot soldiers of the message board squeal at those who question the status quo with: "This site is free" or "Quit Whining" or "Post up facts to dispute the slant of the articles". Each fails to recognise that the mask of "neutral stimulation of mental workouts" has long ago slipped. So far as I can tell, this is really about steering people to a very particular right-wing world view. It pushes an agenda. And gives an impression. I won't pretend to understand it all, since the person who runs the site has been very explicit in telling me that "We use the site to affect whatever aims we desire. It won't always make any sense to you all and I don't care even a little bit." (Coach, Rest Day, April 26 2009).
Well this member of the "studio audience" is sick and tired of being treated like an idiot, so he's going to hit the WODs hard and give the Rest Days a permanent swerve. I just regret that previous recommendations of Crossfit to others risk making me look like a nutjob every 4th day. And I wonder how many people visited the site and then heard voices of doubt in their head concerning the efficacy of the fitness advice, given the myopic pushing of a right wing political agenda. How much money does this crap cost the affiliates putting their life savings into their new boxes. But hey, what would I know, right?
I don't want to waste my time posting links to articles that many here will simply view with their biased conservative persectives. As well, I come here for FITNESS, remember that? I don't come here for politics. Fitness brings together, politics, by nature, divides. Never mix fitness and politics...now THAT will mess you up!
Cheers Jakers and lighten up my friend!
Exactly! That is what a lot of people were saying yesterday, but you were very articulate with your post. Somebody named Diane quit yesterday for exactly the reasons you state--that it is VERY clear that the thin veneer of "neutral mental stimulation" is, in all actuality, anything but. It is appalling that anyone would choose to divide the incredible people here based on politics, instead of bringing everyone together under the umbrella of fitness. Seems to many that Crossfit is actually about right-wing fitness exclusivity, and not about fitness for all.
Fair enough...if they would only be upfront about that.
We had a discussion of whether waterboarding qualifies as torture in last rest day's discussion (although the topic of the rest day article was the A-Bomb detonations over Japan).
For my thoughts on why waterboarding is torture see 182, 187, 193, 198 and 207.
First it is rich to tell me to lighten up. I'm basically the self appointed court jester. 90% of my posts are jokes.
You need to lighten up. To wit I quote
"OMG, I don't know if I can stick around here either. That post was disgusting,..."
All the hallmarks of someone who doesn't taken themselves to seriously right there. With the implication that you are taking your toys and going home. So go home all ready. Oh yeah another liberal standard. Empty threats. Unless it involves raising taxes. You guys get on that toot sweet.
And only the weak cannot stand being exposed to opposing views. I welcome your articles. it doesn't mean I have to accept or approve of them. You said you were going away. Not me. Now are you going or not?
"these people are terrorists. Right. Says who? Look at the Skipton 3, released from Gitmo because they were completely innocent."
J1 - they were not waterboarded. Fact check required here. They were innocent, they were released, they were not waterboarded. What are you going on about?
Affiliates are free to ... not be affiliates. The expectation that someone else's free offering should comply with your sensibilities ... where does that come from? I don't get it at all. Might as well wish the sun would come up at a different time. Why waste the energy on that?
Then again, I'm going to have to accept that there are people like that, and they are shameless about showing it so as not to waste my own energy on their buffoonery.
Right wing, left wing - who cares? When you throw that out the way you do, it makes me think you can't think beyond politics as a two dimensional problem when it clearly is much more complex.
Your peaceful nature is reflected in your posts, you walk your talk, you get my respect for that, fwiw.
There was nothing in your post that was light hearted or humorous.
I didn't like your post. I said so. Do I get some sort of medal of valor for saying so?
Hmmm. I don't see how you could intimidate someone online. Male or female. Nope. No intimidation here. Its not possible.
>>>I've decided I'm going to stick around here and fight the right wing propaganda machine at work.
Now if you had said that at the start I would have had some respect for you. Saying I don't like it and I'm leaving? Fey.
Prole and I don't agree on much but I certainly respect him and I think I like him. At least he defends his point of view and usually brings something substantive.
I don't expect you to let me win. But if that is the best you got it's kind of inevitable.
Prole, #247, copy. Given that, would agree or disagree with the assertion that follows:
-given the complex nature of the law
-the imperative of self defense
-the assumption that on the scale of shitty things that happen in a war (in which the State kills human beings on grounds of self defense), waterboarding is well below the median
-those waterboarded were three sworn enemies of the US, with valuable knowledge
-under controlled conditions
-with the intent to discern whether the 3 had information that would save lives
-with careful review by those making the choice
-with a very reasonable assumption that life saving information could be obtained
That even if you judge that all of the above would not be a justifiable use of power by the State, that many others of good conscience could conclude differently? In other words, this event, troubling as it may seem, is not some trivial outrage, but is in fact a complex matter worthy of serious dialogue? That the matter rises above who's political party is the worst? Paul
Carrie, as to your last point, we would no doubt have more in common in virtually any other forum.
Curious that you perceive this as republican. Coach is not a republican nor a conservative. The characterization you are making is more about your perspective than about what Coach and Lauren choose to post. The 'propaganda' is there for you to dissect every fourth day, by all means weigh in and represent your side.
As for the rest of comment 252 - I can't answer that logic. I wish you well, Paul
Carrie, #252:"politics and fitness do not mix."
I disagree. Fitness, or rather Crossfit's version of it, denotes a specific worldview which is absolute and objective. Weight is weight; the numbers don't lie, your time is X, etc. You don't make the lift by failing but "you tried really hard so you deserve it" is utter BS in Crossfit.
The world is either an object reality or it isn’t. Crossfit boldly, and I feel correctly, declares it objective.
In others world there are whole braches of philosophy that unusable and meaningless if CrossFit is employed. Absurd, in the logical sense, and irrational philosophies are not compatible with Crossfit. Further to accept Crossfit as valid means all other aspect of life needs to follow a similar objective worldview, the world can’t be objective only when CrossFit but then subjective the rest of the time.
Now, IMO politics is nothing but philosophy applied to organizing people.
So through philosophy CrossFit and politics are tied together.
Now does that mean with the context of an objective worldview there isn’t room for interpretation, value judgments, etc? Of course not. Just as there are an infinite number of smaller numbers between 1 and 2 so are there as many objective worldviews. However once a worldview is proven false either by logical violation or real world comparison it must be discarded or corrected.
Well, you know, it's a funny world. For all these voices crying out for facts and references and making counter-claims, nobody has yet said that the Skipton Three do not exist. It's the Tipton Three. Basic error in facts. Very basic.
If there are any who belong to both camps - arguing against the example of the Tipton Three *and* calling for rebuttal in the form of articles, facts and figures: with the use of some inductive logic, this suggests you're being momentarily lazy at best, or hypocritical at worst.
I have neither the time, the energy, nor the inclination to see whether anybody falls into both categories. You're intelligent enough to know it yourself.
On a lighter note...
For those claiming weakness in others, or a need to be more open-minded, or to see things from as many different perspectives as possible, might I suggest we all read some Nietzsche? Let's start with Beyond Good and Evil...
Wrong. Fitness is not politics. Human interaction and existence is not a series of blacks and whites. Methinks you need to read up on your quantum physics.
Once again, fitness and politics do NOT mix. One can be a strict adherent of Crossfit and be either a raging conservative or a tree-hugging liberal. One's worldview is not neccesarily determinative of whether one engages in any particular fitness regimen. To think otherwise if fallacious. A conservative worldview may be sufficient, but it is not a necessary condition for fitness or Crossfit. Quite the contrary.
Crossfit has no comment on objective reality. Crossfit has a comment on...wait for it...fitness!
Peace to you my friend.
I have been crossfitting for quite sometime, but had been a lurker here. I had noticed quite early on that there was a patent bias toward the conservative political slant in the articles and comments. I ignored it as long as I could.
I think our posts are both clear examples of the importance of perspective. I'll leave it at that.
Some posts, I look back and wonder if the poster was a troll, impersonating as a clueless participant, just to get the 'regular's' back up.
As for you, Darije, I never wonder that. May I ask - what does the callsign "Darije" reference.
As for me, yes, guilty of momentary laziness at least. Nonetheless, the question brought into question by your correction (I don't know, maybe Skipton was correct) was valid and remains unaddressed. See you next time. Paul
Perhaps your suspicion of others posts is more indicative of your mindset than of any dubious posts.
What specific posts are you referring to, and why would you have such suspicions?
Apolloswabbie, Re: #257
That's quite a pleasant. Thank you.
Since you ask... Darije's my name, pure and simple. If feel it's distinctive enough in and of itself for me to consider a pseudonymic callsign
unnecessary. If it interests you, etymologically, it's a translation of Darius (the Persian emperor).
As before, I'm quite busy right now, so I'm sorry to say that I'm only able to offer short analyses as in my previous post. I'll reply substantially either tomorrow or on Sunday, and we'll see if we can't make some headway in this discussion.
Carrie, I owe you an apology for a previous insult, but not an answer. Be well, Paul
Darije #255, in fairness to Paul, he seems to have known exactly the individuals of whom I was speaking. Neither of us googled or wikied before posting - that's all.
Paul #250, I didn't say they were waterboarded. I cited theirs as a stunning case of a supposedly benign state getting it drastically wrong. They were deprived of freedom indefinitely, subjected to stress positions, white noise and sleep deprivation. No big beer for you it seems - you even ask me what I'm on about.
As for your view that I'm dumb expecting a "free offering" to comply with my sensibilities....where do I start.
1. You seem to suggest that it's free so I really shouldn't complain if I don't like something. This is a multi-million dollar business, not a charity. People like me do certs, join affiliates and buy t-shirts. And we recruit others to the cause. There's no charge for the site, but the site has been the engine of commercial growth. The idea that there is a benign provision of free information for no reason other than the betterment of mankind is laughably naive.
2. Crossfit sets itself up as an open collaborative source where the line between producer and consumer is blurred. I'm collaborating. What's your problem with that, exactly?
3. Posting right wing articles isn't in the least bit objectionable, but posting ONLY right wing articles becomes disingenuous, where this is done under cover of the guise of promotion of "mental fitness". Telling me it's been like this forever and isn't going to change, doesn't really come into how I feel about it.
Likewise my friend. I appreciate the sentiment. I'll be sending you out positive energy today to kick some serious ass on the WOD, if you haven't already done it. Enjoy the weekend and peace to you.
J1, my friend, even though I fully disagree with all points above, I doubt that I would budge you with further typing ... I believe we may be working from such a different frame of reference that understanding is not possible via this forum. One of my favorite moments in life is when, in dialogue with someone of a different perspective than mine, the moment arrives when we both understand just exactly what or which value or assumption is the point of divergence - it is a sublime experience for me. Takes a lot of time and work and cigars with diet coke seems to have been of great assistance as well ...
have rarely been able to pull that off via this forum but worth a shot from time to time.
I wasn't trying to be mean Carrie I was simply responding to a personal, unprovoked attack by Tommy boy. As I stated earlier it’s just the internet and it’s just words nobody has gotten hurt and no damage has been done. I for one think it’s funny, like in high school when you get in the put down contests with your friends but at the end of the day you go to their house for ice cream. No harm no foul. I have fun with it all and admittedly not a lot of patience for the delicate flowers that glide through the prairies of life thinking everything would be wonderful if we all just hugged and wore leather sandals. The know it alls are a little annoying as well, thinking that because they have google it makes them somehow more knowledgeable than everyone else. So if your sensitive and a know it all wrapped up in one well your prime for a little verbal assault. But its better than getting your nose broken right?
Anyway here is a big hug for everyone and wishing all a great workout :-)
Carrie: "Human interaction and existence is not a series of blacks and whites
Sigh... Where did I say it was a series of black and whites? I said, "Now does that mean with the context of an objective worldview there isn’t room for interpretation, value judgments, etc? Of course not." So there it is, the "gray" you claim I am not acknowledging.
"One can be a strict adherent of Crossfit and be either a raging conservative or a tree-hugging liberal. "
Again, I didn't say "liberal" or "conservative" couldn't CrossFit only those with an absurd or relative worldview couldn’t and remain true to Crossfit.
"Crossfit has no comment on objective reality."
Sigh, that statement is so ridiculous it doesn’t even deserve to be called wrong. It is uneducated at best, knee-jerk denial at worst. I’d explain it again it but I have neither the time nor the patience to do so public forum. It’s obvious to carry on this conversation further I would first have to educate you as the idea and definitions of "absolute\objective" and "relative\absurd" within philosophy. These are pretty basic and as such it would end up being more a lesson than a true discourse.
If you, or anyone else, really want to discuss philosophy and CrossFit and how they interact feel free to email me.
Hello again! :)
You say: 'Again, I didn't say "liberal" or "conservative" couldn't CrossFit only those with an absurd or relative worldview couldn’t and remain true to Crossfit.'
I (any many others) have a "relative" worldview and I have remained true to Crossfit for 2 years.
Dealing with physical exercise and a physical body is quite different from dealing with humanity, minds, and quantum reality (whether acknowledged or not) in everyday existence.
Crossfit is about one very small aspect of existence--fitness. I don't begin to pretend that because I Crossfit I should live in a certain way or affect certain behaviors outside of the gym. Quite the contrary!
I always enjoy a good philisophical discussion, but the scientific facts of quantum physics beg to differ with any worldview based on a hard and fast truth or pure objectivity, which, as subjective beings, is impossible for us to obtain. We exist through a subjective lens.
Enjoy your weekend!
loved the article! I was in GITMO for the first year it was up, even in camp xray before they were finished with the gitmo camp. its great to finally see an article that isnt making some sort of false accusation about the camp and what goes on there. I worked it, i lived it, and it is NOTHING like the ICRC liberal media would love for you to believe.
This is pretty brutal hen-pecking here. I come back to this site occasionally when I'm near a computer, but same stuff on a pretty repetitive basis...
I would say I have empathy, but I'm also trying to rationalize the balance between protecting this country, freedom, and justice. And yes, I have had all the uncomfortable tactics happen to me, but obviously in a much shorter timeframe. Against torture? Fine, I'll agree with that. Abu Ghraib was a travesty, and it angers me to see soldiers acting like that. As far as their Eichmann defenses, I don’t buy that in the least. The Army investigated even before the case came to light, the soldiers were severely punished (although a dishonorable discharge for some was admittedly light), and troops on the ground have continually had to explain that this was not the American way. I fully discount Brig Gen (now Col, I believe) Karpinsky’s account, it really couldn’t have been less believable. If anyone could explain to me how a professional interrogator would gain any benefits from passing orders down the chain for Lydia England to walk naked guys around, please enlighten me. Or how orders were passed down to these fools, yet Karpinsky was never in the loop and even barred from knowing what was going on. Anyways, Karpinsky deserved her demotion, but trying to tie the Ghraib scandal to the upper echelons of the DOD or the Bush administration is a stretch, at the very least. I just don’t see the connection.
As far as the lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel, I would argue that they threw around a lot of catchphrases to justify things that perhaps should not have been justified, but at least the administration went through some sort of means to keep the issue in the light. Plus, with the recent doctrine shifts, the future of American waterboarding isn't (knock on wood) an issue. What is the issue is whether we go back and try to prosecute administrators, CIA or contracted interrogators, or whoever else. And I see this becoming more of a political game rather than anything of substance. The McCarthy "Red Scare", anyone?
I am starting to truly despise the victim mentality, and the political games that people play in the name of justice. You have people put on the façade and persona of self-righteousness, yet all they are really doing is trying to solidify political power. America needs to cut out the bul$sh1t, get to the bottom of each problem and make some dam^ decisions. Admit our mistakes, learn from them, but at the same time we need to move on from the same repetitive crap that is more about making partisan insults and broad assumptions. Anyways, random rant.
Just out of curiosity, do you think the Tipton Three have any reason to lie about their treatment in Guantanamo? Or any of the other terrorists? What are the benefits of the Tipton Three if they told the truth, and that in fact, the conditions were pretty good?
Most of this day’s post is brutal, but I actually learned some things reading through last rest day post, same subject. Much more substantive, in my
I’ve always meant to read Nietzche, I have Thus Spake Zarathustra and Twilight of the Idols. Comparable? If you insist, I will stop by a bookstore and pick up Beyond Good and Evil.
Comment #142 - Posted by: Ian Mosher
-Those articles articulate the points well, but not in the way you would like them to. They point to activities, approved at the top of an administration, that are not torture in in my eyes. That you think they - noted. This is hardly scandalous. Paul
You may think we are communicating. I don't.
Last rest day, you provided what appeared to be an extensive citation with numbered paragraphs attributed to the SERE school. As I recall, they appeared to have been numbered in the original. It had tons of extraneous material, and perhaps was 100% extraneous. Nowhere did you describe a technique that was torture here but not there, nor that was done here and there were different, nor did you reference the SERE school stuff for a position stated in your own words. A data dump is not argument, even numbered. Don't leave the reader to discover what might be significant to you, or where your specific is hidden.
That we do not literally torture our trainees in any school is a gimmee. Even if some trainer had done so at some time, it certainly was not school or higher policy. It would have been like an Abu Grhaib. As a result, I cannot parse your discussion about “torture occurring in schools” and “torture in schools”, and cannot compare whatever you're talking about to your “torture by interrogators”.
Now I do understand your new #8 where you claim that waterboarding in school is not torture. This is an example of a position coaxed out of you. Still, you say with no specifics that school waterboarding is different than interrogation waterboarding. Consequently, you admit waterboarding is sometimes torture and sometimes not. That should be the end of it, both ends of it, even without specifics.
Now a request for a specific: what thing do you think is done in interrogation waterboarding that qualifies it as torture under the Act, and what is your evidence for that thing actually being done?
James Humphrey, Jr. #228,
Let's assume each detainee was taken by U.S. military, where the capturer had the legal option to have killed him, or to have maimed him in the most horrible means imaginable, subject to the applicable rules of engagement, and that those rules embody all the applicable treaties. To this point, we don't concern ourselves about the status of the victim as a combatant or less, or justification for his treatment. If he's not dead yet, under what conditions do you suggest he acquires new rights not to be killed or maimed, or to have an attorney, or whatever comfort? And why? This would be worthy of some discussion in all its implications to arrive at a better and still practicable set of rules.
RE to Comment #275
Dr. Glassman, maiming a combatant is not legal in any rule of engagement for members of the United States armed forces; the "capturer" never has the legal option to do so.
Paul, if you're going to disengage like you attempt above at #266, citing "different frames of reference" that's cool. I'm left wondering why you still made time and had the inclination
a) to label my views on Rest Day as "shameless buffoonery" (#250); and
b) belittle my political views, saying I'm "two dimensional" when a bright spark like yourself understands that politics is in fact, more complex (again, post #250).
What is Rest Day actually about for you?
As for your comment at #273, I would have to instead agree with the author of the article referenced by Ian, when he stated:
"One fact, seemingly incontrovertible, after the descriptions contained and the judgments made in the ICRC report, is that officials of the United States, in interrogating prisoners in the "War on Terror," have tortured and done so systematically."
Jeff #274, Prole had you bang to rights last Rest Day. Your argument that waterboarding isn't expressly mentioned in torture laws and so is not torture lacks intellectual maturity and perhaps honesty. Given the very serious nature of the underlying subject matter of the discussion, I find that particularly unseemly.
Zo, Re: Comment #272
On the Reading of Nietzsche...
I'm sorry to say that I can't compare Twilight of the Idols with Thus Spoke Zarathustra, because I have not read Twilight of the Idols; I do know that it is one of Nietzsche's early-period books, and therefore quite different to his later work, of which Thus Spoke Zarathustra is the first. I'm relatively well acquainted with his mature period work, but not with his earlier work; so unfortunately, so I can't even begin to draw a comparison.
In terms of his mature works, three stand out: Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Beyond Good and Evil, and On the Genealogy of Morals. I have read the first two, but not the last, so I'll offer my advice here.
I won't insist, but I would recommend that you read Beyond Good and Evil first. It is the best introduction (in my opinion) to Nietzsche's late work, for a number of reasons: mainly to do with the writing style. Whereas Thus Spoke Zarathustra is written as a novel, overflowing with highly elliptic and charged prose, Beyond Good and Evil is written in a much more concise style. The intensity of the prose in Thus Spoke Zarathustra is easy to get carried away with - but it carries away the underlying message with it, if not read carefully (which it is very, very hard to do first time round). Beyond Good and Evil, on the other hand, is written in an aphoristic style, each one carefully sculpted to get to the heart of the point in as few words as possible; thus, it is much easier to understand.
This is especially important given the sheer depth and complexity of messages Nietzsche wishes to convey. You MUST (here I insist) read everything slowly, and more than once. Sit and think about it carefully, because the surface appearance of wanton nihilism is just that: a surface appearance.
On the reading of Beyond Good and Evil: remember to treat each aphorism distinctly. Do not let your reading flow from one to the next. Then go back at the end of each chapter and try to bind it all together in you mind.
Having read Beyond Good and Evil, Thus Spoke Zarathustra is a good place to go (though read it first if you wish, though I do believe it will be more difficult that way). Having practices reading Nietzsche very slowly, and with a lot of deliberation, you should find TSZ much easier to understand. This way, I hope you'll find it a much richer experience - the same wonderful writing style, but you can also read a lot more depth into it.
It's also important to read his other workd simply because some aspects prominent in one work are all but omitted from others (e.g. the Ubermensch appear in TSZ, but not BGaE).
And sorry for the length.
Welcome to CrossFit Brain. What you perceive as political indoctrination is actually about teaching reason and rational thought. You claimed the site was dividing people. #246. Actually it is uniting people in rational thought.
You claimed that I said “that [I] cannot find 'liberal' articles which utilize rational thought.” I said no such thing. I said they were scarce. Rational thought begins with accuracy in language.
You say, “since I'm a woman and you big bad male?” #249. Even in jest, you think in gender politics, a hallmark of the left -- irrational, and political. Jesse Jackson's famous racial slur and Sonia Sotomayor's repeated race and gender superiority statements reveal an inner flaw in their mental makeup. It's entwined with the evil of affirmative action and the patent irrationality of political correctness, both the property of the left.
You say, “Fitness is not politics.” #256. The left restricts nothing from its politics. CrossFit is brought to you through free enterprise, the antithesis of the left. CrossFit promotes a dietary regimen that is contrary to big government's irrational standard. If you don't see the vector of the left, just watch Obama.
You say, “CrossFit is about one very small aspect of existence-fitness.” #269. Not at all, assuming you mean physical fitness. (Be accurate! Say what you mean.) “Fitness is about performing well at any and every task imaginable.” CrossFit Journal. Rest Day is all about the task of thinking.
On the last Rest Day, rhowk #28 said,
>> Waterboarding is torture, it is illegal under US and International Law, … .
If it is illegal there, it is interpreted so by people like rhowk. It certainly is not explicitly so. It is a half-truth in law, and otherwise, a lie.
Now combine this with the fact that for a law not to be unconstitutionally vague, it must lead to an explicit regulation. Whatever is explicitly banned by the Torture Act of 2000 must be in DoD regulations to which we are not privy. The whole law should be declared unconstitutional, or as a minimum unenforceable. Certainly it is unconstitutional and unenforceable with respect to waterboarding, for which we now have three lefties, Nance, rhowk, and Prole, admitting that sometimes it is not torture, and none able to tell us when it is.
So your charge that
>> Your argument that waterboarding isn't expressly mentioned in torture laws and so is not torture lacks intellectual maturity and perhaps honesty.
lacks about everything we admire in civil discourse. I suppose you need a list. Sigh!
I don't have the time to search for left nleaning articles to stimulate discussion. I would imagine this video link to the British socialist MP George Galloway testifying in front of the US Senate would be an interesting link to post next rest day
I would find this article more persuasive if the author provided us with his source material he is working from. The essay makes many assertions which are not substantiated by providing the source material so that we may verify them. I will say I find the divisive nature of the arguments going on here disheartening and in no way providing any value to my fitness albeit physical or mental. I do appreciate the rest day articles but may have to refrain from reading the drivel posted in the comments.
Thank you for breaking up the monotony of a working weekend.
I am sure there are several ways in which each detainee came to capture; some arrested, some caught after immediate combat, some turned in by someone other than US forces. The issue has to do with when is that label of unlawful combatant placed on each detainee? Once that label is placed, then it has to be assumed that they have no rights whatsoever, just like the Germans stealing American uniforms in WW2 during the Battle of the Bulge.
But what concerns me is that there are the 73% accredited immediate threat to America; what about that other 27%? That is a significant number of people in jail (close to 1/3rd of the prison population) who were not a direct threat to America yet possess no rights because of the label. What got them imprisoned in the first place? If they weren't a direct threat to America, as in American interests, citizens, military, whoever associated with America, what has is the reason for their detention?
If they weren't a threat, well, they should be free then, right? If they planned to do something, as in actual, real steps, that's a threat, which would keep them from that 27% population.
Investigative trial is needed. Weigh ALL evidence with none thrown out. Make the time to take the time to look into exactly why these men were taken prisoner instead of simply executed on the field, where in the harsh reality of war, our service members had every right to do so.
Considering it was an act of mercy to not exploit rules of war and execute them upon capture (which in past precedent was the occasion) then mercy should then be extended towards concluding whether or not someone is a threat or a mistake was made during their capture and therefore they go free.
James Humphrey, Jr. #275,
My understanding was that we had a Military Commissions Act which provided in part for a method to determine whether a detainee was a newly minted “unlawful enemy combatant”. And further, that implementation of the Act was stalled by Congress while Bush’43 was in office, and since Obama, of course, the bar has been lifted.
My question is different, and concerns the status of an individual from the time he is taken in a combat area until he is subject to the MCA.
Here’s a scenario I hope is not too lame.
A squad of special forces is sent to rescue a most high value individual kidnapped by jihadists, who have been in the practice of beheading captives. The squad dropped in to a compound by helicopter separates to search inside, and one member alone enters a room to surprise a pair of individuals he believes to be consistent in dress and appearance with jihadists, and they surrender to him. Having only a scheduled pick-up time, he has no way to transport these individuals, and his urgent priority is to rescue the kidnap victim, but he is free to interrogate his new captives. Our hero has read Uris’s Exodus and recalls the dramatic scene where the Jews successfully interrogate a pair of Arabs. So in like fashion, he asks the first suspect where the victim is, and when he starts praising Allah instead of answering, our hero silently dispatches him with a knife across the throat. This, of course, is in hopes of getting the second jihadist to talk, and to talk effusively. Now regardless of the success of this tactic, and regardless of the ultimate fate of the second jihadist, was the first killing justifiable? Discuss.
R1 - response in filter. Somewhat terse - function of urgency vice intended tone. The blunt part - intended. Paul
No. But I'm very curious where your train of logic will lead. Paul
Would your answer #278 be different if you knew the squad was Israeli?
Does Israel have better rules of engagement than the U.S.?
When you write "justifiable", in what context do you mean it? Morally? Legally? So far, I'm with Paul on this.
Legal. Under Military law, under US code, and under treaties.
Are these individuals armed at time of surprise? In proximity to armament? They could be grocery clerks, or a neighbor bumming a cup of sugar...
K, I am being smart, but you get my point. If there is beyond reasonable doubt, as in this soldier is a professional through and through and knows his enemy up and down, I would say yes because they're dead anyway; the soldier hasn't pulled the trigger yet.
But in reality, that may be murder; I don't know all the rules, nor do I pretend to. I would surmise that it really boils down to if there are witnesses to then end event. Nasty, harsh, yep, but probably common reality...
OK, I think this link in the next rest day discussion as left wing stimulus. It is video footage not an article.
It shows some of the Senate interview with the leftist British MP George Galloway, who was falsely accused by the US Senate of trading Iraqi oil, something the Bush Government itself did on a massive scale.
I don't much like George Galloway's politics but it is compelling and convincing viewing and raises the possibility of very many flaws, inconsistencies and potentially dishonesty in the Bush government's approach to at least this aspect of the invasion of Iraq if not the entire involvement in Iraq
I tried to post this yesterday but checking back today, it didn't appear on the comments board. I sincerely hope this isn't censorship, given the repeated requests above for just this kind of leftist stimulus
My scenario was intended to create a choice between abuse of detainees and a life-critical mission. When James Humphrey, Jr. #282 started to put conditions on the soldier’s actions, he was creating a rule of engagement that gives the enemy a strategy to defeat certain actions. All he has to do is send someone forward to surrender and the mission becomes short handed and jeopardized.
Or, commanders have to send out larger teams, reducing their combat readiness.
If I got any takers that the killing was OK, I think I could have created a new scenario where the detainee is moved back a short distance from the scene, say to a command post, and the situation is a bit more complex but in essence repeated. All this was to make people think about where a detainee is suddenly afforded protection and rights against his captors. And to think that battlefield intelligence gathering can be mission critical.
Humphrey would turn a military action into a civil action, throwing in probable cause. He would do this while the soldier is running at the peak of his instinct and training.
War is distinct from police actions in some important areas, like rights of the victims and collateral damage. Sometimes grocery clerks get shot in a war. Innocent people get crushed not quite to death when a building is brought down. Unidentified people huddled in an Afghanistan cave can be roasted alive within today’s rules of engagement. Sometimes an action is intended to frighten and demoralize the enemy. It would be terrorism except that the targets are combatants.
The soldier in the field who may kill and maim should not be under arbitrary rules that put him and the mission at risk. There should be no time limit between when he could have used lethal or almost lethal force and actually did, nor which weapon he chose. The fact that some soldiers might be psychopaths is grounds for other remedies, not for rules that hamstring military actions and turn squads into field detectives and combat social workers. When a soldier turns his captive over to a civilian CIA agent or a designated prison authority I believe is time enough for the captive to earn whatever his rights might be as a POW or an unlawful combatant.
You wrote: "Still, you say with no specifics that school waterboarding is different than interrogation waterboarding."
My so-called "dump" of data provided an account by someone who would likely be qualified as an expert by a court (and is surely an expert in comparison to the general population and to the people who have posted comments on this topic on this forum). The account was directed at addressing the issue of whether the fact that waterboarding is used in SERE training is sufficient to pull waterboarding of detainees out of the scope of the torture statute. Before giving you the quote, I actually provided you with a specific and crucial difference between SERE waterboarding and terror suspect waterboarding that would be apparent to any non-expert: the former is consensual while the latter is not. Not only is that a significant difference conceptually, but that difference would be enough on its own to demarcate a line between illegal waterboarding (torture) and legal waterboarding (SERE training).
You wrote: "Consequently, you admit waterboarding is sometimes torture and sometimes not. That should be the end of it, both ends of it, even without specifics."
What would be the end of it, would be an "admission" that waterboarding is never torture. I'll repeat what I said last day: there is only one set of rules for determining whether conduct (including waterboarding) is torture, and the SERE training would likely fall within the rules and therefore not constitute torture.
You must surely admit that the reason waterboarding is an issue of concern these days is not that we have finally discovered waterboarding occurs in SERE training; it is because we have discovered that the President authorized waterboarding and that it was in fact practiced by American interrogators after 2002.
You wrote: "Now a request for a specific: what thing do you think is done in interrogation waterboarding that qualifies it as torture under the Act, and what is your evidence for that thing actually being done?"
You've raised two questions here (the second question is part of your customary technique of attempting to move the goal line).
My answer to your first question:
I will assume waterboarding as it has been carried out by US interrogators has occurred in the manner and at the frequency described by Steven G. Bradbury, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, in his memorandum to John A Rizzo, Senior Deputy General Counsel, CIA (May 10, 2005):
"13. The Waterboard: In this technique, the detainee is lying on a gurney that is inclined at an angle of 10 to 15 degrees to the horizontal, with the detainee on his back and his head toward the lower end of the gurney. A cloth is placed over the detainee’s face, and cold water is poured on the cloth from a height of approximately 6 to 18 inches. The wet cloth creates a barrier through which it is difficult – or in some cases not possible — to breathe.
"A single “application” of water may not last for more than 40 seconds, with the duration of an application” measured from the moment when water – of whatever quantity — is first poured onto the cloth until the moment the cloth is removed from the subject’s face. (See Aug. 19 letter.)"
"When the time limit is reached, the pouring of water is immediately discontinued and the cloth is removed. We understand that if the detainee makes an effort to defeat the technique (e.g., by twisting his head to the side and breathing out of the comer of his mouth), the interrogator may cup his hands around the detainee’s nose and mouth to dam the runoff, in which case it would not be possible for the detainee to breathe during the application of the water. In addition, you have informed us that the technique may be applied in a manner to defeat efforts by the detainee to hold his breath by, for example, beginning an application of water as the detainee is exhaling."
"The waterboard may be approved for use with a given detainee only during, at most, one single 30-day period, and that during that period, the waterboard technique may be used on no more than five days. We further understand that in any 24 hour period, interrogators may use no more than two 'sessions" of the waterboard on a subject-with a "session" defined to mean the time that the detainee is strapped to the waterboard -- and that no session may last more than two hours, Moreover, during any session, the number of individual applications of water lasting 10 seconds or longer may not exceed six. As noted above, the maximum length of any application of water is 40 seconds (you have informed us that this maximum has rarely been reached). Finally, the total cumulative time of a sessions of whatever length in a 24-hour period may not exceed 12 minutes. " This memo is widely available on the internet.
This description clearly indicates that the suspect would be within the physical control of an interrogator and that the interrogator would be acting under color of law. This would satisfy the requirements of the preamble to the definition of torture in 18 USC § 2340.
Further, this description makes it appear extremely likely that the conduct of the interrogator would result in "severe physical mental pain or suffering" as that term is described by clauses 2(a),(b), and (c). Setting aside the issue of whether pain would be likely to result from this procedure (without admitting that it would not), it seems likely that conduct which results in a person being unable to breath for 40 seconds at a time, for up to 12 minutes a day, would result in severe physical "suffering". Consider this description by Jay S. Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, in his 2002 memo:
"During those 20 to 40 seconds, water is continuously applied from a height of twelve to twenty-four inches. After this period, the cloth is lifted, and the individual is allowed to breathe unimpeded for three or four full breaths. the sensation of drowning is immediately relieved by the removal of the cloth. The procedure may then be repeated. The water is usually applied from a canteen cup or small watering can with a spout. You have orally informed us that this procedure triggers an automatic physiological sensation of drowning that the individual cannot control even though he may be aware that he is not in fact drowning. You have also orally informed us that it is likely that this procedure would not last more than twenty minutes in any one application."
It would seem that it is impossible for a person to avoid the physiological sensation of drowning so that each time this technique is applied, the suspect will feel as though he is drowning. It seems very likely to me that if a court were to consider waterboarding in the context of the Torture Statute, it would find that intentionally inducing a feeling of drowning in a detainee by pouring water in the detainee's mouth and nose so that it is impossible for the detainee to breath constitutes conduct resulting in severe physical suffering, and that therefore, that conduct is unlawful torture within the meaning of the Torture Statute (US courts have found waterboarding to be "torture" on several occasions, though in none of those cases did the court consider the Torture Statute which became law only in the mid-late 80s).
My answer to your second question. The Bradbury memo states the following:
"The CIA used the waterboard "at least 83 times during August 2002" in the interrogation of Zubaydah, IG Report at 90, and 183 times during March 2003 in the interrogation of KSM, see id. at 91."
My question to you: why is waterboarding as described in the Bradbury and Bybee memos not torture within the meaning of 18 USC § 2340?
I keep trying to post a link to George Galloway presenting to the US Senate in 2005 answering Arms to Iraq allegations. It is left leaning, well argued and militaryily themed, meaning that if you are serious about providing 'liberal' themed debate, it is a good example.
I think it would provide an interesting counterpoint to the above concerns about conservative dominated stiumuls for rest day debate.
For whatever reason, my posts don't get through the filter.
To the Glassmans...what do you think about using one of the Galloway itnerviews tomorrow as stimulus? I personally don't like his politics too much but he is very convincing in his arguments and while disliking him, I absolutely agree with him that the charges against him were erroneous, maliciously intended and spuriously generated by a political machine intent on generating a smokescreen to cover it's own activities and harming a perceived enemy.
they are all easily available on youtube
For the sake of argument, I will go along with your assumption that the technique as described faithfully represents waterboarding as practiced by the U.S. on certain detainees. I will similarly concede your conclusion that the preamble conditions for custody and color of law are met.
The method is measured. It puts restrictions on time and repetition. These, the government would certainly argue, are what keep the procedure from rising to the level, as you misquoted, of “severe physical mental pain or suffering”. You say “this description makes it appear extremely likely” that it would rise to that level. Is it not only an appearance, as you say, and not a reality? Isn’t that rather the essence of waterboarding, giving the appearance of drowning?
What does extremely likely mean to you? Less than a certainty, certainly. Is that enough for a finding the law was violated, or instead evidence that it is just shy of a violation? I believe the government intended not to cross the threshold but to use the most severe interrogation techniques permitted under the Torture Act.
The legal issue under the law is the intent of the US. It is not a mere intent, but “specifically intended”. You should follow appellate court rules for statutory interpretation and give every word a meaning. The restrictions on duration and repetition show a specific intent not to be excessive, that is, not to cross the threshold of torture. You have provided evidence that the intent criterion is not met, and that is a sufficient defense.
It all would turn on how a court might wish to interpret what Congress intended. What did “specific” mean? And “prolonged”, and “severe”.
You said it was likely that a court would find that waterboarding induced a sense of drowning. I would concede that, and even that it induced an involuntary and most unpleasant gag reflex, and a sense of panic. I would contend, however, that such a severe sense of drowning is not your “severe physical [or] mental pain or suffering”. Things just as bad occur on reality TV shows. A court should not find it prolonged. We’ll never know. Courts regularly and intentionally end a matter without ever settling it.
Your argument has provide another major weakness in the waterboarding-is-torture theory, and that is “specific intent” is contra-indicated. You did not address the question of why you consider waterboarding as practiced in SERE to be different and not torture.
I disagree with your suggestion that waterboarding as it was described in the memos I referred to is comparable to what occurs on reality tv. I think this would not go down well with jurors who have the procedure explained to them.
On the question of "specific intent"consider the judgment of Federal Court 3rd circuit in Pierre v. Atty Gen USA (3rd Cir. 2008). This case is often cited by folks on the left and the right as standing in support of the following conclusion:
"The “knowledge that pain and suffering will be the certain outcome of conduct,” is “not enough for a finding of specific intent” to torture — the exactingly high mental state prescribed in the CAT and the torture statute. To prove torture, it would be necessary for a prosecutor to show “the additional deliberate and conscious purpose of accomplishing” severe pain and suffering. Without an evil motive to torture the victim, there is no torture even if great pain and suffering result." (see: http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NjRhNWQ2YTRlYWI2NzU0Yjc0NmFlN2FjMmI2YzYyODU=)."
This reading of the court's interpretation of the "specific intent" requirement of the Torture Statute is incorrect because it is incomplete.
What the court said was that where pain and suffering is the unintended consequence of an act or course of conduct, it will not indicate the necessary specific intent. Further, the court said that where a person is willfully blind to the severe pain and suffering that is likely to result from a course of conduct, that person will not have the necessary specific intent. In the Pierre case the applicant argued that he would suffer severe pain and suffering upon being deported to Haiti because in a Haitian prison he would not receive the medical care he required for a preexisting condition. The court said that Haitian authorities did not have the specific intent to cause Pierre severe pain or suffering. The court held that because the Torture Statute requires the high mens rea element of "specific intent", the fact that the authorities had knowledge that Pierre would suffer pain and suffering in Haiti was not enough to satisfy the offence.
"Given the ratification history of the CAT, we conclude that the CAT requires a showing of specific intent before the court can make a finding that a petitioner will be tortured. In this vein, we note that Pierre does not dispute that the CAT includes a specific intent requirement. Rather, Pierre argues that the specific intent requirement can be satisfied by a showing that the Haitian officials have knowledge that severe pain or suffering is the practically certain outcome of his imprisonment. We disagree that proof of knowledge on the part of government officials that severe pain or suffering will be the practically certain result of Pierre's detention satisfies the specific intent requirement in the CAT. Rather, we are persuaded by the discussion in Auguste that the specific intent requirement, included in the ratification history of the CAT, requires a petitioner to show that his prospective torturer will have the motive or purpose to cause him pain or suffering. As in Auguste, we hold that "for an act to constitute torture, there must be a showing that the actor had the intent to commit the act as well as the intent to achieve the consequences of the act." Auguste, 395 F.3d at 145-46. Specific intent requires not simply the general intent to accomplish an act with no particular end in mind, but the additional deliberate and conscious purpose of accomplishing a specific and prohibited result. Mere knowledge that a result is substantially certain to follow from one's actions is not sufficient to form the specific intent to torture. Knowledge that pain and suffering will be the certain outcome of conduct may be sufficient for a finding of general intent but it is not enough for a finding of specific intent.
Consistent with this, the specific intent requirement in CAT's implementing regulations excludes "unanticipated" or "unintended" severity of pain and suffering. 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(5). Again, I cannot emphasize enough, the mental element is knowledge or desire that pain and suffering will result."
Additionally, the court made the significant legal finding that "willfull blindness" will not satisfy the specific intent requirement of the Torture Statute:
"Willful blindness can be used to establish knowledge but it does not satisfy the specific intent requirement in the CAT. See United States v. Wasserson, 418 F.3d 225, 237 (3d Cir. 2005) (stating that evidence of willful blindness satisfies the mental state of knowledge). Moreover, to the extent that Lavira suggests that mere knowledge is sufficient for a showing of specific intent, we overrule that suggestion. In sum, because we have rejected the knowledge standard discussed in Lavira, and because Lavira contained no discussion of the illicit purpose requirement in the CAT, Lavira's CAT analysis is overruled."
But, as always, the particular facts of the case crucially shape the general principle we can glean from the courts reasons. The court found that the purpose of imprisoning Pierre (imprisoning without medical care would have been the actus reus of the offence of torture) did not satisfy the specific intent requirement, because the purpose was not to cause pain and suffering, but to keep criminals locked up:
" Here, Pierre will not be imprisoned 1) to obtain information or a confession from him, 2) to punish him for an act he committed or is suspected of having committed, 3) to intimidate or coerce him or someone else, or 4) for any discriminatory reason. Rather, Pierre will be imprisoned because the Haitian government has a blanket policy of imprisoning ex-convicts who are deported to Haiti in order to reduce crime. The lack of medical care and likely pain that Pierre will experience is an unfortunate but unintended consequence of the poor conditions in the Haitian prisons, which exist because of Haiti's extreme poverty. We find that this unintended consequence is not the type of proscribed purpose contemplated by the CAT. To the extent Lavira suggests that the intentional infliction of severe pain need not be to accomplish one of the proscribed purposes, Lavira is overruled."
Now, consider the "purpose of waterboarding", is it to lock up criminals? is it to provide hydration? what could it be?
Consider the Courts remarks in closing (emphasis added):
"In conclusion, we will deny Pierre's petition. As the courts in Matter of J-E- and Auguste found, there is no evidence that Haitian authorities imprison ex-convicts upon their deportation to Haiti in order to cause them severe pain or suffering. Rather, the conditions prevalent in the Haitian prison are due to "Haiti's economic and social ills." Auguste, 395 F.3d at 153. As Pierre is unable to show that the Haitian authorities specifically intend to cause him severe pain or suffering, he cannot fulfill the specific intent requirement of the CAT.8 commonly have dual purposes. IN HER HYPOTHETICAL, THE REASON A JAILER USES TORTURE TACTICS IS THE JAILER'S BELIEF THAT THE PAIN CAUSED WILL INDUCE THE PRISONER TO REVEAL INFORMATION. THUS, UNDER THE HYPOTHETICAL, THE JAILER WOULD HAVE A PURPOSE OF INFLICTING SERIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING, SATISFYING THE SPECIFIC INTENT REQUIREMENT, IN ADDITION TO A PURPOSE OF OBTAINING INFORMATION."
I think it could very plausibly be argued that the intent of waterboarding is to cause severe physical suffering (I haven't even mentioned mental as that would require a lot of expert evidence) in a detainee so that he will "reveal information". Thus, according the reasoning of the court in Pierre the "[interregator] would have a purpose of inflicting serious pain and suffering, satisfying the specific intent requirement, in addition to a purpose of obtaining information," and be guilty of torture under the Torture Statute.
If what is described in the Bybee and Bradbury memos actually took place (and nothing worse), those memos might support a finding that the interrogators did not have the specific intent to kill their suspects, however, it seems to me the raison d'etre for waterboarding is to cause enough discomfort in the suspect to get him to talk, and thus, if what the suspect feels as a result of the waterboarding is severe or mental suffering, then the offence of torture is established. The pain and suffering experienced by a person undergoing a waterboard interrogation (putting aside cases were the procedure was applied dozens of times on the same person) is not an unintended consequence of some other course of conduct, it is intended by the interrogator.
It would seem the interrogator would be in the position of saying: "I intended to cause the suspect enough discomfort that he would talk, but I did not intend that discomfort to rise to the level of "severe pain or suffering" even though I knew that what the suspect would feel, without fail, is the sensation of drowning."
I think that defence is "ify" at best. And of course, my cursory review of how Pierre would support this manner of establishing specific intent conviction is laughable in comparison to what a motivated team of prosecutors with resources could do over many months or years.
#191 Thomas: are your insults better than mine? Of is it OK when you do it, but not for anyone else? Or OK if it's not political or on-topic in any way? Or is the problem that I am making points which are contrary to your own vain assumptions, that you lack either the knowledge or the temperament to address?
BTW: Pilates was interned by the British in a camp not unlike Gitmo, for German nationals residing in Britain during WW1. What are we to make of someone who--in the course of chastising someone else for getting their facts wrong, gets their facts wrong?
#226: All that article said was that we were CERTAIN about 72%. The remaining ones we are REASONABLY certain about. Had you taken the time and trouble to READ THE ARTICLE you would have learned that military tribunals will be held for ALL of the inmates. Grow up, son, or shut up. I'm tired of ignorant whining.
I don't have time to read the rest of the responses, but let me simply offer up the following: there is an article, linked herehttp://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/the-gitmo-myth-and-the-torture-canard-15154
which discusses these issues at length. Now, I know it is much easier to pull facts out of your a$$ or to insult the same people you've been insulting for the last 40 years--who, you assume, must be guilty of something--but I see no practical difference between assuming malice on the part of people sworn to protect us, who have left a substantial, documented record, and assuming malice on the part of people who we find with assault rifles on the battlefield.
Wait, actually, maybe there is a difference.
If you read the article--maybe over the next day or two--you will find that the efforts of Bush, Yoo, and others, were PRECISELY to limit the use of coercive interrogation techniques, in a situation where everybody was losing their head, and actual torture quite probable.
What you seem not to understand, is that Bush had probable cause to believe that waterboarding did not rise to the level, legally, of torture, as the law had until that point been interpreted. No organs failed; no permanent damage was done.
Was it intended to promote panic, fear, and the physical sensation of drowning? Yes. Was it MUCH less painful and permanent than what Al Queda routinely does to people it captures? Of course.
If you should read that article linked above--and I think you should--then you will see a clear, linear, factually based case that even in cases where torture would appear justified, it is not used.
And as I quoted above, an attack was foiled on Los Angeles in 2004 through what amounted to discomfort techniques, not even waterboarding.
When we call you a leftie, we are simply pointing to the seeming unwillingness to see our point of view. You are looking for what is bad, and ignoring what is good. You are looking for points to score against Republicans, even if you have to throw a few Democrats under the bus.
More than anything, you are working--intentionally or not--to objuscate the instrinsic moral differences between us and our enemies. They cut the heads off of children for fun. They put bombs on women and blow them up in cafes and street markets. We get our own people killed regularly in our care to prevent civilian casualties.
In short: we are having this discussion--whiny ass leftists and all--and they are not, and never will. If you are unable to grasp this, that will come as no surprise.
BTW: I'm with Jeff. Why don't you post something you consider intelligent and factual, and arguing a leftist talking point. This article, today, holds water. It makes sense, and appears well documented. You do not appear to have read it, much less refuted it.
Post something comparable on the left. In my experience, leftist rhetoric is a lot like cotton candy: it looks substantial, but evaporates quickly in the heat of sunlight.
I will add, that I would be fine if Coach posted a left wing article: Daily Cause, moveon.org, Huffington, whatever. Those people are low grade morons, and I would not anticipate the slightest difficulty shredding them. They make up facts, distort facts, perform incessant non sequiturs, claim ad hominem as valid argument, and rely for their effect on the prexisting enthusiasm of their readers for stories whose ending is always known in advance, since they know the writers of the screen plays are on their side.
My question for those who want to criticize the posted articles: if we "right wingers" are so obviously wrong, why do you always embarrass yourselves with your hyperventilating, whining, and inability (in most cases) to demonstrate the capacity to read or write in more than paragraph length?
If we were really the brainwashed ones, wouldn't we just keep repeating some variation on the theme of "but mine goes to 11?" Why is it the most articulate posts--certainly the topical ones--almost invariably come from the Conservative side of the political spectrum? Why isn't it evenly mixed?
Prole is articulate, but he almost invariably strays from the topic. In arguing that waterboarding is torture, he neglected the substantial moral analysis I offered, and then pretended that his own understanding of the law necessarily must have been Bush's. Bush, however, consulted a task force from within the Justice Department, created guidelines which were arguably in compliance with the existing law, then acted on it.
Moreover, the use of waterboarding was limited to only a few people. It was never routine anywhere, and certainly not Gitmo. The article makes that clear.
Thus, what we have to see here--since he has proven neither that Bush had compelling reason to believe he was breaking the law, nor that torture is always and invariably wrong--is simple smoke and mirrors.
Clarity on these issues--moral clarity--is quite possible, but made exceedingly difficult to achieve when a substantial segment of the people conducting a debate do NOT have such clarity as their primary goal.
@#291 "This article, today, holds water. It makes sense, and appears well documented."
Really? There is no bibiliography provided, even the 3 footnotes provided provide no reference material.
The article may be well written and make sense if that is the hope you have when reading it, but you are taking it somewhat on faith since the author is not providing you the source of his "facts".
Jeff, it was a thought provoking question. Reminded me very much of the Murph question. With the very general ROE and military law I can remember, I was thinking 'not iminent threat, not 100% id hostile, put them in zip ties and move along.' Wonder what the field guy's thoughts on this would be. In a trial though, I think self defense could be a valid defense. One would hope the teams get this scenario for training before they are in it.
Nick - mine were getting jammed yesterday too. Part of the spam defense. Paul
J1, tried to get this one up yesterday -
J1, you asked:
a) to label my views on Rest Day as "shameless buffoonery" (#250); and
b) belittle my political views, saying I'm "two dimensional" when a bright spark like yourself understands that politics is in fact, more complex (again, post #250).
What is Rest Day actually about for you?
J1, OK, I'll bite. I do think it is buffoonery to come to someone else's free site and complain about how they do business. I try to be polite, I nearly always regret when I am not, sometimes I fail to find the best way to say these things. For that matter, I am certainly guilty of buffoonery, so I suppose the charge has to be considered in that light. I articulated my thoughts about why Coach and Lauren run the site as they do up in 125 or so - it still completely escapes me that folks would bother to come here and complain about how someone else's free web site is run. It’s like joining a dinner party and saying “Hi, you have a nice party here, but I really hate the paint, would you please change it to meet my needs?” I also freely acknowledge that it's buffoonery on my part to care about the buffoons who choose to show their buffoonery. As for your concerns about the affiliates - they knew going in this is what is done on the site. They chose to charge in.
Do you think there's more to politics (which is to say, how democracies, representative republics, and the like regulate how the coercive power of the State will be used for or against the rights of the Citizens) than two dimensions, or don't you? If so, care to express that understanding? Your language implies you are stuck in the same 'us-good' 'them-bad' trap that most people, left or right, bright or otherwise, are.
As for my arrogance - yes, no doubt, it frequently gets the best of me. When you made a comment above about ‘a supposedly benign government’ I had the sense “there’s just no talking to this guy.” Frame of reference issue.
I wrote above what rest day is to me. One of my first posts around #125 or so. The dialogue rapidly goes no where (so to speak) when it can't get past “which party sucks more than which other party.” A simple example - James asks the right questions about the issue without throwing up his hands and saying 'isn't this leader or that nation so terrible.' James’ approach leaves room for all sides to learn - about how to think of the issues, about what the issue are, about how different sides could see the issue, and about how to talk without distorting words like 'torture' which is completely tortured in the current fight over who gets to use the coercive power of the US State. I like that. I think that’s what the point of this drill is.
Politics is divisive because it’s about who gets to use the coercive power of the State against whom. Ignoring it may be the most pragmatic thing to do – I’m nearly certain the time I’ve spent playing at understanding it has netted zero impact in the world. Perhaps it is at best tilting w windmills. Participating in politics and then complaining about the divisiveness is buffoonery – implies a complete mis-understanding of what is going on.
Thanks for the citation for “specific intent”. It is really quite strong, i.e., narrow. I am not familiar with the Pierre case, but from what you wrote it seemed to be a case brought to prevent deportation in reliance on a torture statute. A very similar defense might arise to prevent rendition, and produce exactly the opposite decision. The U.S. should prevail on the current torture charge, however, because it showed its specific intent, rightly or wrongly, to use waterboarding without violating the torture statute.
At #130 I posted a link to the video recommended by Moyers and suggested by WeemsFit, but no one responded. That little documentary-like movie called Torturing Democracy urged that the Bush administration’s attempt to develop a solid legal position on torture violated the American principle that we are a country of laws. That is a nice example of the unsymmetrical thinking that to me characterizes the left.
For you and Barry #291, being a leftie to me is subscribing to the irrationality of the idea that we can achieve racial equality by favoring one race over another (affirmative action). It is the perverse idea that we can create a new truth out of falsehoods by renaming things (political correctness). E.g., it’s the unsymmetrical idea that racism is white against black, but never black against white. It’s the idea that we can reduce our “dependence on foreign oil” by reducing our dependence on any oil – and on coal, and on natural gas. And it’s the idea that wind power, solar power, and geothermal power will suddenly make economic sense when a minimal analysis shows the impossibility. It’s the perverse idea to go green by cutting back on CO2 emissions. It’s the silly idea that tiny hybrid cars are better for the environment by ignoring the battery hazards, by ignoring the upstream costs of producing the electricity, by ignoring the cost to the consumer, by ignoring the performance and economy penalties, and mostly by ignoring the superior decision making of the consumer over any government.
Being left means to seek prosperity and growth ostensibly by gross expansion of the money supply and of the size of government (expanding socialism). (I say ostensibly because we must always distinguish between the propaganda of the left and its actual intentions.) It’s the preference for a strong, inaccessible, central government to replace a federal system of unprecedented success. It’s the economic folly that deficits don’t matter, and the parallel nonsense that there’s no inflation while the velocity of money is small. It’s the idea that we can declare the world’s best health care system to be in crisis, and then solve the problem we manufactured by nationalizing the industry. This is going to solve defensive medicine and kill half the trial lawyers’ business all right, but it includes throwing the baby out with the bath water. Some of us learned in the Great Depression that increasing spending, increasing taxes, and expanding government all deepen the problem, but recovery came after the war when we reduced spending, reduced the size of government, and reduced taxes.
Being left means believing deregulation cause the Obama depression when it was over-regulation that created the whole subprime mortgage fiasco that initiated the crash. It’s the corollary belief that greedy lenders were making bad loans, when Congress forced them to do so. And too to ignore that Congress then went on the take to look the other way while rating agencies built a house of cards out of phony AAA ratings that they sold.
Being left means turning the other cheek when attacked, disarming, and allying with dictatorial, totalitarian, terror-sponsoring governments. It’s the latest idea from Obama that the Nazi extermination of Jews was equivalent to the dislocation of Palestinians caused by the multinational Arab war against Israel. It’s his idea that Arab rocket bombardments are unimportant compared to Israel pacification by settling on lands taken in the war. It’s perverse logic again, an empty idealism in the face of many lessons learned over the last century.
The thread of thinking from the left that passes through all these is a naked failure to rely on knowledge or facts, objectivity or reason. It’s like Alzheimer’s among the far right, to be sure; but it’s a pandemic contagion on the immediate left.
Mine was just a sample scenario. At the next level, imagine that the two jihadists are transported for interrogation in Arabic at command. The interrogator there learns that they have just come from putting an explosive device on some public conveyance, a bus or an airplane. He needs to know what, where, and how immediately. It’s 24 hundred hours and he’s the senior man on duty ‘til morning. So having read Leon Uris, he starts questioning them together, and when the first fails to cooperate, dispatches him in front of the second. Was the killing justified?
Some people are going to feel better when number 2 blabs, and a bomb is safely removed from an airliner filled with nuns and school children. But that is neither the test nor the question. The matter is what the ROE forbid absolutely.
This kind of reasoning and method is why we refrain from using atom bombs, land mines, and flame throwers instead of banning them outright. It’s why the torture law can’t be made specific. It is a political show piece until Congress adds, "including but not limited to waterboarding".
Carrie : “I (any many others) have a "relative" worldview and I have remained true to Crossfit for 2 years.”
Okay, I think I see the issue here; it’s a matter of definitions, I’m using the actual philosophical meaning of the words “relative” and “absolute”, heavens only know what you think you are talking about.
A relative worldview means there are no absolutes (an instant logical contradiction but you claim to hold it) A relative worldview means there is no “right” or “wrong” in every and any respect. The fact you make a statement such as “Crossfit and politic don’t mix” as an absolute statement which again either refutes your idea that you have a relative worldview or you are absurd (accepting logical contradictions and irrational thought as valid). Then to further prove your point you actually argue about it relying as if you were “right”, again in a relative worldview there is no right or wrong, arguing simply denies your own position. Do you not see this?
Carrie, “Crossfit is about one very small aspect of existence--fitness. I don't begin to pretend that because I Crossfit I should live in a certain way or affect certain behaviors outside of the gym. Quite the contrary!"
No, but to accept Crossfit, a rational framework is necessary. Do you count failed lifts as successful if the person worked really hard and “deserved it”? Yes means a relative worldview and a no means an absolute one. It’s as simply as thatas such a decision indicates your view on the rest of reality.
Carrie, “I always enjoy a good philosophical discussion, but the scientific facts of quantum physics beg to differ with any worldview based on a hard and fast truth or pure objectivity, which, as subjective beings, is impossible for us to obtain."
Okay, this is just getting silly; do you even listen to yourself? If you held a true “relative worldview” as you claim, then you believe there are no scientific facts (as facts are absolutes) so how can you hold them up as “proof”? Thinking that quantum mechanic somehow allows for relative worldview is absurd so I’ll say provide proof (and I will say I am very familiar with quantum mechanics).
Carrie, “We exist through a subjective lens.”
Sigh. This is a nonsensical statement; it could only be proven if an assumption of an external object reality exists. Then go on to show every person has a non-true interpretation of events, an impossibility due to the judge would only being able to show a view differed from his own but unable to check if another’s view matched to didn’t match the objective world due to his own "lens". You do see the problem here don't you?
You say you enjoy “good philosophical discussion”.. who the heck are you talking to when you have these discussions? Spouting self-refuting platitudes isn’t good philosophical discussion, it’s embarrassing. Heck I’m embarrassed for you, hence the previous and continued invite to email.
Well whatev, email me if you like but I’m not going to read this day’s posts anymore as it’s now too far in the past to warrnt rechecking.
#293: Leswal: what fact do you dispute? Or is it the conclusion, that Bush was someone very concerned with the rule of law, careful in his conduct, and who absolutely did not do virtually any of the things the Left has accused him of?
How many of you are concerned with the justice of allowing regular attacks on the guards at Gitmo, specifically so as to reduce Leftist propaganda opportunities?
I have heard often about how it is better to let 99 people go, if 1 might be innocent. What if all 99 are sworn to commit mass murder by any means necessary? What if you release them, and they do? What if, then, the "innocent" guy turns out not to be so innocent?
This is not hypothetical. We need to understand our soldiers--our Spec. Op guys especially--take a lot of risks, and incur casualties nobody reads about, getting these homicidal sociopaths off the street. The main defense of them I see here is that they MIGHT be innocent.
Well, we've had two former Gitmo guards post on this very thread, and what they are saying is what the military is saying: these guys are DANGEROUS.
And WE ARE NOT WATERBOARDING THEM. That was done years ago, and done in a very limited way. Obama has banned waterboarding, and the rule of law--now, as under Bush--is obeyed in that particular facility more perhaps than any other in the American criminal system.
Imagine you are the mother of a 5 year old girl, walking with her 12 year old sister to school for the first time. You are watching them head off down the street, when suddenly a loud explosion goes off, and you watch her get cut in half by a piece of shrapnel.
Imagine you learn later that the bomber was detained by the Americans, known to be a major threat, and released because WHINY LEFTISTS needed a daily cause so as to keep their propaganda campaign--whose end goal is the elimination of democracy and civil liberties--going?
If you want to play "imagine", I can play that too.
By the way, this approximate scenario HAS played out a number of times. It's not hypothetical.
Do you want to say you are just trying to obey the rule of law, and that the practical, moral consequences of your views don't matter?
Do you want to say you are just trying to be moral, and the exact rule of the law is secondary?
Do you want to claim, to ANY large or small extent, that there are trade-offs in the moral world, and sometimes a small evil is necessary to prevent a much larger one?
Or do you just want to say that if the American military is doing it, it must be wrong?
Or something else? Please contextualize your "compassion" for me. Excuse me: your EMPATHY. The feeling of relating to someone different from you, and feeling their pain. I feel the pain of the innocent. You seemingly feel the pain of the guilty.
Me: not so much. If you read about what these sick bastards do, we are practically putting them in a vacation resort compared to what they deserve.
20 pull ups each time L.
Barry, I've been asking myself why I was so riled up by some of the "chat" on here over the last while, and I think I've found the answer.
Are you familiar with the case of the Birmingham Six? I'm not going to google or wiki this so forgive any innaccuracies - but here's a little precis.
There was an horrific explosion in a pub in Birmingham in the 1970s. Lots of innocent people were killed and maimed. The police were under intense pressure to find the perps. They found six Irish guys on a train, on their way to Northern Ireland for a funeral (of someone believed to have been a member of the IRA or at least, someone who was a known sympathiser). They took the six guys into custody and roughed them up a bit, but essentially, they looked innocent. For good measure, they took a forensics sample (probably fairly primitive by current standards as this was the 70s). The results were positive for nitroglicerine. The police needed a confession but they were certain they now had their men. They beat the living sh*t out of them for a few days, including forced submersion in a bath filled with water (which by the end contained a lot of blood). Eventually, they all signed confessions. At their trial, the judge remarked that he was very sorry indeed there was no ability to hang them and sentenced them all to life.
Turns out that they were playing cards on the train and the plastic laminate gave the positive sample. Turns out that the IRA - a long time later - acknowledged that the police had the wrong guys. All six were released after about 16 years in prison (again, I didn't wiki so don't bother correcting unless it's really important).
What is the point of the story and why is it relevant?
I'm an Irish Catholic. So that recent history isn't in the abstract for me. I had relatives who lived in Birmingham through that series of pub bombings and it wasn't nice being Irish. There were some nasty incidents of public anger and back-lash. So empathy when people talk about suspected terrorists probably comes a bit easier to me, than someone who lives in the US. I know individuals who have been on the wrong side of a hostile checkpoint. Y'all probably know people who stood there with their automatic weapons and their shades. You're failing to really comprehend a major result of what happens when you go into another country in boots - even with the best of intentions.
In Ireland, "Terrorists" without uniform, back in the War of Independence in 1919 - 1922 had their fingernails pulled out by British forces looking for information. For the Irish, it was a war of independence. For the British, it was a war on terror. Special tactics were required and authorised at the highest level. Several British officers resigned their commissions over it but many more had their "Yoo memos". Official reprisals were brutal and swift. It was a dark chapter in the history of both islands. And the lessons of that horrible time should have been learned.
Unfortunately, I see some tragic histoies being played out again by none other than the "shining beacon on the hill". The nation who TWICE came across the Atlantic to take on German militarism and facism. The nation which stood between much of the world and the evils of Stalin. The nation which offered leadership and hope for so long. It's a sadness I feel. Not an anger and not a mindless anti-this or anti-that. I'm not some f*cking idiot who thinks there's no such thing as a just war. I'm don't think we'll all just get along if we can talk. Evil needs to be confronted and where necessary, fought. And it can be a dirty business and there'll probably be some innocent casualties. So the "WHINY LEFT" stuff is just laughable to me.
Unfortunately, the lessons that should have been learned have been forgotten and there is a really naive "they're out to get us and we have to do whatever it takes" mentality that sounds hard as nails but is counter-productive and shameful. For example, the pathetically undergraduate understanding of international law that anyone without a uniform is an "unlawful combatant" and can be "shot in the field". Really? That's my grandfather you're talking about, so f*ck you (not you personally, Barry) and your right wing bullsh*t which classifies KIDS who come against you as expendable. It's a sick mindset. You put boots on the ground in a foreign land, you're going to p*ss off the local population. You want to invite that aggravation on youselves after 9/11? Fine. Personally, I think the whole WOT is a f*cked venture and the Iraq fiasco is just a tragically misguided clusterf*ck. But that's for another day.
The reason I'm so p*ssed off reading all of this dry intellectual mast*rbation above on torture is the lack of EMPATHY. How can you now realise what was going on and not be shocked that this was being done by Americans? In the name of America? Even the experts on good intel tell you that the sh*t doesn't work! But still Jeff asks for specifics to prove it's illegal. Is it immoral, Jeff? Might you address that first to give a cloak of decency to your subsequent pontificating? Prole tells you that SERE training is consensual and you don't think that gets to the heart of your question?
So when you ask me about scenarios, they're always where you're watching someone getting blown up, or you've got a terrorist who knows something etc. etc. etc. You never wonder that it might be you in that chair, or tied to that guerney. You never wonder that it could be your brother, uncle, son or cousin, picked up in God knows where, by God knows who, for God knows what reason. That's what really f*cking blows my mind about this whole discussion. The. Lack. Of. Empathy.
To bring it back to the Birmingham Six, they were convicted in the full glare of media spotlight in one of the most high profile criminal trials ever held in the UK. And the UK is one of the countries in this world with an admirable tradition of parliamentary democracy, transparency, respect for the rule of law and constitutional rights, stretching back to Magna Carta itself. So how the f*ck are the US, in combat or post-combat situations, in black sites / grey sites, Gitmo or wherever going to get things right all the time? What the f*ck are people supposed to be fighting for? A place? Or ideals? Or does anyone know anymore?
"#293: Leswal: what fact do you dispute? Or is it the conclusion, that Bush was someone very concerned with the rule of law, careful in his conduct, and who absolutely did not do virtually any of the things the Left has accused him of?"
So I'm just supposed to take the word of the author that he is correct in his assertions? or should I expect to see supporting evidence of those assertions from other sources? You think the author is correct because he supports and reinforces your view point. I would be compelled to agree with the author if he provided supporting material.
Leswal: asked to provide specific facts with whic you disagree, or to offer facts which conflicted with those in the article, you punt. From this I conclude that you may well not have read the article, and if you did, it was not critically. In short: you have nothing to add, positive or negative.
J1: I don't think you read the article. The Yoo memos, and ROE that were implemented with respect to "enhanced interrogation" were PRECISELY designed to avoid murky ambiguities in a dynamic, stress situation which would lead to the sorts of things you are talking about.
We are not beating confessions out of people. We are not waterboarding confessions out of people. IF YOU HAD READ THE ARTICLE, you would have had the process detailed for you by which verifiable and actionable information was extracted that enabled us to prevent another attack--in Los Angeles, in 2004.
Only a few people were EVER waterboarded, although those few got the treatment quite a few times. That was done in a period where everyone was justifiably worried about another attack that would kill between thousands and millions. We have not engaged in a lengthy program of the sort the British did in Ireland. We have, in fact, GONE OUT OF OUR WAY TO BE KIND TO THESE SOBS.
When I talk about bombings, this is NOT HYPOTHETICAL. When we let people out of Gitmo, who swear on the Koran, Bible, and on their mothers grave they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time, a VERY high percentage of the time, they pick up a gun, and start killing and torturing innocent people again within a very short time.
So spare me your narcissistic piety. Spare me your moral ambivalence masquerading as humanitarianism. I have plenty of room in my heart for innocent people, wrongly accused and conficted. I just also have substantial--if not complete--faith in our Armed Forces. Such faith, for those willing to accept in principle that we just might STILL be the Good Guys, is strengthened by reading articles like this. I would encourage you to set aside the time to evaluate the evidence presented here.
Nice Barry. Your true colors come out. I ask for the source material of the article and you say to me to provide material that disagrees with the article. You are a pompous ass. I have read the article and how do you know whether I agree with it or not. Simply ask for the source material to verify is not a punt.
I see where the guy from the 1998 Kenya embassy bombings will be brought to trial. Nice; it's really not that hard...
Done, thanks for the summary! I'll try to get a copy of it, I'm in the middle of nowhere right now but hopefully can make it to some sort of a bookstore by next week...
J1-297: Amen Brother ! Parts of your post ought to be mandatory reading.
Sorry, I only saw your post now. Effectively, to use your "exquisite moment" terminology, I think it comes down, very simply, to the fact that you see this as a free resource where it is open to me to come and post, or not. For me to come along and choose to castigate the provider of this amazing and free resource, is both ungrateful and pointless.
I can really see where you're coming from. It's a solid position.
From my point of view, however, I do feel differently. You see, I have "bought in" to Crossfit. I tell people about it all the time. I eat, sleep and train Crossfit (odd doughnuts, late nights and few pints aside). It's become a part of my identity (not in a nerdy way, I hope). I'm enthused by it. I also feel like part of a community of sorts. If there's something, training-wise, which I don't agree with, then I'd need a lot of evidence, knowledge and bottle to speak up and take issue with it. However, Rest Day is not an integral part of the fitness regimen. It is an "add-on". That's just a fact. It is outside the realm of specialism which draws most people to the site. Coach has no special wisdom on matters policital or ideological. They're just opinions. I believe it is very plausible and not at all buffoon-like to respectfully suggest that having just one side of a political spectrum presented time, after time, after time, which is actually what happens here, is something with which I take issue. I'm not about needlessly starting some sort of horrible, nasty campaign. I'm on the inside, agitating for a change to Rest Day in one specific aspect only - bias.
Imagine Crossfit had been developed by someone in France. You found it, practised it and loved it. Every fourth day, the guy posted up a link to an opinion piece about how the world would be a lot better off if it was socialist. About how the WOT was an absolute disgrace. About how Guantanamo Bay was an abhorrance. About how Iraq is an example of naked American imperialism. Nowhere on "LeCrossfit.Fr" is there any explanation of any inherent bias. The articles are simply posted ostensibly to promote "mental fitness". People praise this free provision of information and revel in the ability it provides for people to get "intellectually and rhetorically fit". Stop and honestly ask yourself how you'd feel. My guess is your reaction might be:
- ignore Rest Day and keep getting as fit as you've ever been; or
- dive in, disagree with the articles but never comment on the apparent bias; or
- dive in and, (maybe after a few months), politely suggest that you don't object to the notion of Rest Day, you don't object to putting up articles which are "Left Wing", but perhaps the guy running the site might consider either being upfront about the fact that he's promoting a very particular world-view and that Rest Day is really about steering people towards a Leftist ideology or perhaps the guy could put up articles from both sides of the political spectrum. That way, there is a "change of ends" and no-one has to face into the sun / up the hill / into the wind, every single time they get stuck in. It would also seem to fit in with the "constantly varied" theme.
If you think you'd shun option 3 and think it buffoonery, then you have my utmost respect for your consistency.
As regards politics being black and white / two-dimensional, the question itself implies a simplicity of mind or understanding on the part of the person of whom you have asked it. You may not think it comes across as superior, but it does, IMO. I apologise if my earlier posts came across as somewhat aggressive or rude. In actual fact, I was exasperated. I hope my subsequent post (now at 297) goes some way to explaining why I was quite so vexed. Prior rudeness signifies my own failure to articute what it was I was feeling. Hope there is no harm done.
Greg #303, thanks.
AMRAP 15 minutes
15 air squats
10 35lb kettle bell swings
completed 11 rounds as rx'd