Tags:



...


Looking for good quotes from evil men.
October 10, 2006 10:51 AM   RSS feed for this thread Subscribe

Where can I find some good Hitler quotes? There's a whole lot

I am an Indiana University student and our school newspaper recently printed a horrible column in favor of Gitmo, torture, and execution. I mean it's really, really bad.

This made plenty of us here at IU rather mad, and now we're trying to think up the best response for the letters section in the upcoming Thursday paper. I've already typed up a real response. Another friend has already typed up a satirical response, but we need something with more oomph.

So here's the question. Before Thursday I would like to find a good dictator quote, from Hitler, Stalin, or anyone else, that supports the views of the column to demonstrate how goddamn absurd all of his claims are.

So...mefites, any suggestions?
posted by ztdavis to writing & language (25 comments total)
For people that don't want to spend time on links:

Gitmo and company
By Edward Delp  | Indiana Daily Student | Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Let me preface this column by saying one thing: I have no problem with torture.

I think in a battle as important as the war against terrorism, certain things must be done, and if the professionals on the front lines need to use torture or aggressive interrogation to get information out of suspects, so be it.

I am therefore forced to conclude that the primary center for aggressive interrogation, the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, should remain open. Recently, many groups have called for the base to close.

Not surprisingly, among them is Amnesty International.

According to the group, the United States will, among other things, violate human rights principles by conducting military tribunals, permit the executive to expand the meaning of "enemy combatants," give the military authority to hand down death sentences in trials that did not meet international standards and prohibit any person from invoking the Geneva Conventions in court.

So what?

Even if the United States did all of this, it would not be such a bad thing. Military tribunals and expanded use of the term "enemy combatant" are things the United States has needed for a long time. We are, after all, facing a new and dramatically different type of warfare.

As for having the trials meet international standards, that is generally code for having such strict evidentiary rules that a conviction is nearly impossible and (if a conviction is secured) not allowing the death penalty to be imposed. The death penalty is clearly something our government feels it needs. Call me crazy, but I think the United States knows how to fight terrorists better than the peacenik human rights whiners at Amnesty International.

Perhaps even more disturbing than Amnesty International's stance on Guantanamo is that of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Recently, the BBC published profiles of 10 British citizens currently being held at the military prison. Tear-jerker stories of mistaken identity and hard-working guys beat up by the big bad United States made up the majority of the profiles.

Not surprisingly, the BBC's source for several of these profiles was Amnesty International.

The simple fact is that terrorists are still out there. Despite what the Amnesty International-types might think, American personnel will be brutalized at the hands of our enemies no matter what we do. Does anyone honestly think the likes of Iran, North Korea and Osama bin Laden will not torture Americans if we close down facilities like Gitmo?

The aggressive interrogation at the prison seems to be producing valuable information. If it did not, why would the United States be transferring high value detainees such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi Binalshibh and Abu Zubaydah there?

In all, yes, I do support torture, aggressive interrogation or whatever you want to call it. Such methods and institutions as Gitmo save lives. I would interrogate every prisoner there if it would save a single American life.

To support anything less is to deny the reality of the war on terror.
posted by ztdavis at 10:52 AM on October 10, 2006


Mein Kampf is laden with quotations.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:01 AM on October 10, 2006


It shouldn't be too hard to find quotations from bad guys supporting the same policies that Delp does. But I'd like to encourage you to rethink that strategy, as its a version of the fallacy of guilt by association. In fact, so many people have used exactly your line of argument that some call it the "reductio ad Hitlerem."

If your argument is that Hitler (or some other bad guy) said the same things as Delp, so therefore Delp is wrong, then you are opening the door to a rebuttal along the same lines (for example, "ztdavis thinks that adhering to the Geneva Conventions is more important than stopping terrorists; Neville Chamberlain also thought that being law-abiding was more important than stopping Hitler - and look where that got him!!!!!!").

The best thing that you can do is rebut his points with clean, logical arguments without resorting to fallacious hyperbole. I'd start, for example, by pointing out that adherence to the Geneva Conventions is what protects our soldiers from being tortured while being held prisoner.
posted by googly at 11:06 AM on October 10, 2006


BTW, I think its great that you're writing a rebuttal to this garbage. I just think that you don't need to stoop to his level of garbage-slinging to rebut his statements.
posted by googly at 11:11 AM on October 10, 2006


I agree with googly ---Hitler was a vegitarian too. I'm sure you can dig up some nice pro-vegitarian quotes from him.

I would suggest instead, that if you want quotes, find quotes indicating that this is NOT an unprecidented threat. Founding fathers are great, especially Madison. For instance "The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home." [via].

The truth of the matter is that all these issues were thought of and debated LONG AGO.
posted by Humanzee at 11:22 AM on October 10, 2006


Googly, I did already write out a reasoned response:

Edward Delp's Tuesday column "Gitmo and Company" is so far off the mark that he supports something the US Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional and illegal. Mr. Delps is so eager to terrorize terrorists at Guantanamo Bay that he misses one very important point: America has positioned itself so that it can arrest anyone at any time without giving any reason.

This is evidenced by a recent report from Corine Hegland of the National Journal. The report finds that only 20% of Gitmo detainees are suspected terrorists and that less than half are suspected of actions against the US. Who, then, is being held in Gitmo? The frightening answer is that we simply don't know, because the government doesn't want us to know.

Nothing, not a law nor a constitutional right nor his wit and charm, would prevent the government from picking Mr. Delps up off the street tomorrow, whisking him away to Gitmo, detaining him for the rest of his life, and "aggressively interrogating" him every day. They wouldn't need to press charges. His family wouldn't be able to find out why he was held. If he ever did face a tribunal, he wouldn't even be allowed to see the evidence he would need to defend himself against.

Nevermind that torture leads to fabricated confessions and that in violating the Geneva Convention America invites its enemies to do the same. What does the rest of the debate matter when Americans fighting a war for freedom are no longer free?


I was just looking for something that might be a bit more hilarious, but I do see your point with reductio ad hilterem. Maybe the actual response will do, instead of satisfying my want for a knee jerk reaction.
posted by ztdavis at 11:29 AM on October 10, 2006


I agree that you should rethink your strategy. If you do use quotes from Hitler or a similar dictator, you need to use some other type of evidence as well.

Somewhat relatedly, see Godwin's Law (wikipedia).
posted by gauchodaspampas at 11:31 AM on October 10, 2006


ztdavis, what you've written is great, and speaks for itself. I think that a bad guy quote, however hilarious (and even if its appropriate) would detract from rather than add to it.
posted by googly at 11:33 AM on October 10, 2006


I hoep you'll excuse me being verbose, but I would respond like this:

Ho Lao and company
By Lê Duẩn | Hanoi Daily Student | Tuesday, October 10, 1967

Let me preface this column by saying one thing: I have no problem with torture.

I think in a battle as important as the war against capitalism, certain things must be done, and if the professionals on the front lines need to use torture or aggressive interrogation to get information out of suspects, so be it.

I am therefore forced to conclude that the primary center for aggressive interrogation, the military prison in Hoa Lo Prison, Hanoi, should remain open. Recently, many groups have called for the base to close.

Not surprisingly, among them is the International Red Cross.

According to the group, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam will, among other things, violate human rights principles by conducting military tribunals, permit the executive to expand the meaning of "enemy combatants," give the military authority to hand down death sentences in trials that did not meet international standards and prohibit any person from invoking the Geneva Conventions in court.

So what?

Even if the Democratic Republic of Vietnam did all of this, it would not be such a bad thing. Military tribunals and expanded use of the term "enemy combatant" are things the Democratic Republic of Vietnam has needed for a long time. We are, after all, facing a new and dramatically different type of warfare.

As for having the trials meet international standards, that is generally code for having such strict evidentiary rules that a conviction is nearly impossible and (if a conviction is secured) not allowing the death penalty to be imposed. The death penalty is clearly something our government feels it needs. Call me crazy, but I think the Democratic Republic of Vietnam knows how to fight aggressors better than the peacenik imperialist lackies at the Red Cross.

Perhaps even more disturbing than the Red Cross's stance on Hoa Lo Prison is that of the Voice of America.

Recently, the Voice of America published profiles of 10 American citizens currently being held at the military prison. Tear-jerker stories of mistaken identity and hard-working guys beat up by the big bad Democratic Republic of Vietnam made up the majority of the profiles.

Not surprisingly, the Voice of America's source for several of these profiles was the Red Cross.

The simple fact is that imperialists are still out there. Despite what the Red Cross-types might think, Việt Cộng personnel will be brutalized at the hands of our enemies no matter what we do. Does anyone honestly think the likes of America, Britain and Lyndon B. Johnson will not torture Việt Cộng if we close down facilities like Hoa Lo?

The aggressive interrogation at the prison seems to be producing valuable information. If it did not, why would the Democratic Republic of Vietnam be transferring high value detainees such as John McCain and James Stockdale there?

In all, yes, I do support torture, aggressive interrogation or whatever you want to call it. Such methods and institutions as Hoa Lo save lives. I would interrogate every prisoner there if it would save a single Vietnamese life.

To support anything less is to deny the reality of the war on capitalism.
posted by prentiz at 11:56 AM on October 10, 2006 [3 favorites]


as a german, I feel compelled to inform you that anything rumsfeld says qualifies. 'homeland security' sounds an awful lot like 'heimatschutz'
posted by krautland at 11:58 AM on October 10, 2006


Your original is much better than snark. I would just add at the end of the 3rd paragraph...

Read at that paragraph again. This is facism. If you had read that description with the placenames and countries blanked out, you would think "that's not the united states, not a free democracy but a facist dictatorship" - if these laws stand, we've allowed ourselves to become what we've fought against for the past 200 years.
posted by lalochezia at 12:12 PM on October 10, 2006


But I'd like to encourage you to rethink that strategy, as its a version of the fallacy of guilt by association.

ztdavis, what you've written is great, and speaks for itself.

Definitely seconding what googly said.

I like prentiz's reworking of the original too, but that could be an extra.

Your rebuttal is perfect as is, clear, concise and touching all the necessary points. You sure don't need to make it hilarious, there isn't much to laugh about here anyway.
posted by pleeker at 12:25 PM on October 10, 2006


Well, according to the esteemed Prof. Obvious, regardless of what's being argued and how opinions may vary, technically speaking an essential part of arguing is giving reasons and examples for what one states, something ztdavis did in his response to the 'so what?' column (why is it far off the mark? US Supreme Court ruling, power to arrest anyone at any time without giving any reason and pressing any charges, risks involved for everyone citizens included, recent report about the status of prisoners, dubious practical use of torture, violation of conventions the enemies are suppose to abide by, contradiction with the purpose of defending freedom - that's 7 reasons he brought up to make his point), but willie0248 didn't in his 'you don't know how to argue' comment.

So, doesn't look like it's ztdavis who needs a recap of the basics of debating.
posted by pleeker at 1:42 PM on October 10, 2006


this is facism

"Face makes the man. Faceless people have little or no influence in society." - Snark Twain
posted by nasreddin at 1:49 PM on October 10, 2006


"Ugh, I wish people would keep Willie0248 out of the AskMeFi political threads(I personally enjoy an open forum)."

Agreed. One should mix at least a tiny bit of content in with their threadcrap/derail. With that in mind:

I don't have any evil quotes for you, and agree with others that tack may be a bit worn. But I do have a little critique/advice. Kudos for taking the time to write a rebuttal, and overall I think it is well done. I do think that your point about being able to disappear an American citizen is overstated at this time. It is a bit of a grey area, and we are certainly headed that way at a breakneck pace, but we aren't quite there yet. At the least you need to support this with some facts to win over anyone but the choir.

You might also want to attack the original editorial on its weakest links: The efficacy of torture, and the notion that there are no consequences for this policy. Regarding the latter, this link might be useful for you (by a writer who presumably knows more about fighting a war than Mr. Delp. Also some quotes from McCain on Torture.
posted by Manjusri at 3:01 PM on October 10, 2006


"I would just add at the end of the 3rd paragraph... Read at that paragraph again. This is facism."

I wouldn't. The word seems too emotionally-laden and likely to turn off the very people he might reach. Honestly, as much as I agree with the general sentiment, every time I see someone use the word "fascism" in relation to current goings-on, my knee-jerk reaction is to label them a crackpot.
posted by CrayDrygu at 3:54 PM on October 10, 2006


Manjusri, I originally started going down a path saying that no American citizens have disappeared yet. Although it did help to qualify my statements it read like an aside that didn't help the overall impact. I also decided that even though we aren't seeing the government pick people up off the street, the mere fact that they could should be reason enough to flip out.

Does anyone know if the term "enemy combatant" can or cannot apply to citizens?
posted by ztdavis at 4:01 PM on October 10, 2006


"You might also want to attack the original editorial on its weakest links: The efficacy of torture..."

Sorry to reply twice in a row, but I forgot all about that. Torture is an excellent method of obtaining confessions, but a terrible method of obtaining useful information. This is because the person being tortured will eventually say anything — true or not — to make the torture stop.

Thus, torture becomes somewhat self-justifying. The more people you torture, the more "terrorists" you "find." This is the very reason that torture is outlawed in the first place -- it is entirely useless except when used to terrorize.

(Which brings me to another point I'd forgotten -- change the "...terrorize terrorists at Guantanamo" phrase. You're trying to make the point that these people largely aren't terrorists, don't undermine your own argument. It also won't garner much sympathy, certainly not as much as "...terrorize the prisoners," or "...terrorize the detainees.")
posted by CrayDrygu at 4:03 PM on October 10, 2006


Well as Samuel Johnson said "Nothing odd will do long".
posted by oxford blue at 6:52 PM on October 10, 2006


That whole article is constructed out of false premises, unjustified conclusions and meaningless statements.

The best way to combat is surely just to point this out.

Just grabbing three things at random:

So, I think you're working too hard with the Hitler-Stalin thing.

The whole thing stands up to intellectual thought about as long as "America, love it or leave it!" does.
posted by AmbroseChapel at 7:55 PM on October 10, 2006


"Does anyone know if the term "enemy combatant" can or cannot apply to citizens?"

I'm no legal scholar, but I did spend a little time trying to make sense of the subject recently. It really deserves its own AskMe post, to see if someone more knowledgeable can fill in the gaps, but I've used mine for the week. In my opinion, if or when this is accepted as an inherent power of the executive branch, the conception of the U.S. as a nation under the rule of law gives way to a cult of personality.

My reading gave me the conclusion was that it is somewhat up in the air. Bush and Co. certainly think, or desire, to wield this power, attempted to exercise it in the cases of Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla, and got the smackdown from the judiciary. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 seems to have stirred up the pot again, with some wording that sounds like a military commission has this power over any person, citizen or otherwise that falls under its jurisdiction.

While this would certainly apply to some Americans, it is unreasonable to think it applies to all. It is also dead certain that the current administration will adopt its most unreasonable interpretation, and that it will be hashed out in the courts, or subsequent legislation. However, since the MCA also explicitly approves suspension of Habeus Corpus for "enemy combatants", I anticipate that this administration (and any future one exercising this power) will exert all effort to keep any citizen detainees secret and fight any attempt to bring their case to the courts.
posted by Manjusri at 8:39 PM on October 10, 2006


Here's a related quote from George Orwell ("Notes on Nationalism," 1945):
All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. ...Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side. The Liberal News Chronicle published, as an example of shocking barbarity, photographs of Russians hanged by the Germans, and then a year or two later published with warm approval almost exactly similar photographs of Germans hanged by the Russians. It is the same with historical events. History is thought of largely in nationalist terms, and such things as the Inquisition, the tortures of the Star Chamber, the exploits of the English buccaneers (Sir Francis Drake, for instance, who was given to sinking Spanish prisoners alive), the Reign of Terror, the heroes of the Mutiny blowing hundreds of Indians from the guns, or Cromwell's soldiers slashing Irishwomen's faces with razors, become morally neutral or even meritorious when it is felt that they were done in the ‘right’ cause.

posted by russilwvong at 11:11 AM on October 11, 2006 [2 favorites]


Thanks to everyone that posted.

They published my first response in today's paper, without any kind of Hitler quote. It's on the IDS website, about half way down and without any paragraph breaks.

While I wish I could have been more amusing, it worked out well. I might try to be one of the columnists next semester (I forgot about the application deadline this semester), so maybe I'll have my fun then.

Thanks again!
posted by ztdavis at 10:33 PM on October 12, 2006


I really liked this:

Let me preface this response by quoting one thing: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” That’s the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights, not a restriction set by so-called international standards or “peacenik human rights whiners” of Amnesty International.
posted by russilwvong at 12:45 PM on October 13, 2006


For future reference, you can find plenty of quotes in Wikiquote:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hitler
posted by ajp at 3:24 PM on October 17, 2006


« Older I can borrow MS Word, I've got...   |   help me with my paranoia! as i... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.