Countertrey wrote:Look, it matters not to me whether the rules for interrogation the CIA is bound to are very stringent, nor very minimal... but I don't want our enemies to have any idea about them.
Congress may, or may not hold them to the standards used by the military... but whichever they do, do it in the dark.
To me this is the real issue Trey. I am more interested in having the enemy not know what the rules are then expanding the use of aggressive interrogation. If they know that we can't do anything but ask nicely, ...
Hail to the Redskins!
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him
Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way
Is there evidence that torture digs truth out of people? The Army's interrogators insist that a tortured captive will say anything they imagine the captor wants just to make the pain stop. If the captive thinks we want to know about "x", then they make up anything they can about "x".
Yes, torture can force a confession, but is that truth?
If we know know what we want to hear, then why bother putting somebody on the rack?
Queen Elizabeth's torturers wanted people to confess to being Catholic assassins. They wanted others to confess to having plotted to separate from the Church of England. Did that make their confessions true?
welch wrote:Is there evidence that torture digs truth out of people? The Army's interrogators insist that a tortured captive will say anything they imagine the captor wants just to make the pain stop. If the captive thinks we want to know about "x", then they make up anything they can about "x".
Yes, torture can force a confession, but is that truth?
If we know know what we want to hear, then why bother putting somebody on the rack?
Queen Elizabeth's torturers wanted people to confess to being Catholic assassins. They wanted others to confess to having plotted to separate from the Church of England. Did that make their confessions true?
You lost me. Who has advocated water boarding for "confessions?" I haven't heard that from anyone. What are you talking about?
Hail to the Redskins!
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him
Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way
welch wrote:Is there evidence that torture digs truth out of people? The Army's interrogators insist that a tortured captive will say anything they imagine the captor wants just to make the pain stop. If the captive thinks we want to know about "x", then they make up anything they can about "x".
Yes, torture can force a confession, but is that truth?
If we know know what we want to hear, then why bother putting somebody on the rack?
Queen Elizabeth's torturers wanted people to confess to being Catholic assassins. They wanted others to confess to having plotted to separate from the Church of England. Did that make their confessions true?
Confessions?????
I want to know about the next murder. If the info pans out, that's cool. If not... oh well.
I'm not interested in a conviction. I want to kill the bastards BEFORE their next sub-human act. Is that a problem for you?
Your principle:
We must not stoop to their level. We must adhere inflexibly to the standards of behavior we have set as our societal ideals, regardless the cost. If that means innocent folks are hurt, then so be it.
Sure... it's honest. It's honorable. Are you as OK with it if it is YOUR child that is murdered?
My principle:
We must do everything in our power to protect the innocent. The terrorists have demonstrated repeatedly that the do not adhere to human standards of decency. They have made their choices. If one has information that will facilitate the protection of the innocent, then we are obligated to extract that information. If terrorists are hurt in the process, then so be it. I won't accept the murder of a single innocent at the hands of scum.
(and, I'll not lose a second of sleep). If the idealists get their way, there will be plenty of us holding them to account WHEN the next innocents are murdered, and it turns out that the terrorist who knew was already in custody.
"That's a clown question, bro" - - - - - - - - - - Bryce Harper, DC Statesman "But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man That he didn't, didn't already have" - - - - - - - - - - Dewey Bunnell, America
Countertrey wrote:If the idealists get their way, there will be plenty of us holding them to account WHEN the next innocents are murdered, and it turns out that the terrorist who knew was already in custody.
It's easy to make rigid rules and not have to think after that. It's a lot harder to actually have to weigh difficult situations there is no simple, dogmatic answer. It's easy to rationalize you're holding to ethical standards instead of taking the responsibility to assess situations and make touch choices.
Idealism is applying black and white to a gray world. There is no intelligence or morality to that. It's not reality, it's a cop out. There is no integrity in letting people die because you can't face reality and you apply a simplistic rule to a complex world. And no one respects us for it. Our enemies still hate us and think we are weak and uncommitted. Our friends are still our friends and think we are naive.
Unfortunately the Right overwhelmingly want to make that simplistic cop out in Church, be a Christian or go to hell. And Liberals do the same at their the Holy Church of the Democratic Party.
Hail to the Redskins!
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him
Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way
"That's a clown question, bro" - - - - - - - - - - Bryce Harper, DC Statesman "But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man That he didn't, didn't already have" - - - - - - - - - - Dewey Bunnell, America
...and I worry that there is great harm done every time we apply water-boarding to a captive. While people are detained, they do not necessarily know anything about future murders. In Iraq, we are dealing with a country that was a police state for 40 years, during which ordinary people were encouraged to inform on each other.
How do we know that people we detain have done anything, or are about to do anything bad?
In Afghanistan, we collected people gathered up by the Northern Alliance, a tribal group that did not speak the same language as the tribes that supported the Taliban. How could we know that those detainees were real Taliban?
In either case, if we torture/water-board/torment prisoners for several years, any who were not terrorists before are likely to be inclined to terrorism now.
In either case, if we torture/water-board/torment prisoners for several years, any who were not terrorists before are likely to be inclined to terrorism now.
There is no evidence that anyone who might have been treated with the harshest methods was any other than the most extreme. Common fighters had nothing to offer, and were handled accordingly. The names associated with treatment that suggests "torture" were the least human of all.
Can we ever release them?
Who cares? Can those murdered get their lives back?
"That's a clown question, bro" - - - - - - - - - - Bryce Harper, DC Statesman "But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man That he didn't, didn't already have" - - - - - - - - - - Dewey Bunnell, America
The argument for the use of any and all available techniques of extracting information falls firmly under the category of "Do Unto Others As Others Would Do Unto You", not the Biblical category of "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You." Those with extensive combat military service are more often than not proponents of "Black Ops" techniques for extracting information from "the enemy".
The label itself is everything in America. Black Ops sounds better to the ear than does "Torture Techniques", and "The Enemy" is a catch phrase most uninformed Americans will jump on. Today, the enemy is synonymous with "Al Queda" or the "Taliban." Anyone thinking this is a new issue, do not be fooled. The techniques themselves have been used frequently, whether authorized or unathorized, since World War I. The techniques were used "en masse" during the "Cold War" era. Many of the techniques in question were learned from our "enemies."
Standard Operating Procedure for the Military is to make every available effort to save lives. If these techniques save one American life, then the rest is irrelevant.
The argument against the use of these techniques is a simple one. The American Justice system fails to accurately convict the guilty and, likewise, fails to accurately free the innocent. If our own system fails our own People, why would or should we believe that the very same system which fails domestically would be effective in matters involving "Un-American Activities."
"Do you solemnly swear to tell the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth, so help you, God?" First of all, truth is based upon perception and is not to be confused with fact. There is a line from Star Wars to the effect of, "Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly upon our point of view." Fictional movie. Accurate statement. The second half of the statement is even more ridiculous. "So help you, God?" What if the individual in question doesn't believe in the same God referred to in this statement? What if the individual doesn't believe in any God? What if the individual worships the Almighty Dollar?
So, to attempt to connect the dots between our Domestic Justice system and the techniques used in "foreign justice", for lack of a better term, we seldomn get the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in a domestic court of law, and we seldomn get the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth from radical extremists who consider it an honor to die for their cause. The polite way is not 100% effective, and likewise, the unpolite way is not 100% effective.
When the decision about how to handle each "terrorist" or "suspected terrorist" is made by some suit-and-tie Bureaucrat who, in most likelihood, never served in this Military, with these policies and precedures, it is the equivalent of playing "hot potato" with a fragmentation grenade. I'm still waiting for the grenade to blow up in the face of the political bureaucrats making these decisions. How will these suits react and respond when our American soldiers are subjected to the same "interrogation techniques" our President advocates for the politicians but not for the soldiers? Better yet, how will the suits react the first time some CIA, NSA, FBI schmuck is captured and mercilessly tortured using the same techniques our fearless (and brainless) Leader advocates? Business as usual politics says these suits will look for a political solution to a problem created by their own politics.
GSPODS wrote:How will these suits react and respond when our American soldiers are subjected to the same "interrogation techniques" our President advocates for the politicians but not for the soldiers? Better yet, how will the suits react the first time some CIA, NSA, FBI schmuck is captured and mercilessly tortured using the same techniques our fearless (and brainless) Leader advocates? Business as usual politics says these suits will look for a political solution to a problem created by their own politics.
Again, I keep asking you and the others on your side. Welch and you in this debate in particular whiff on it every time. WHO is going to CHANGE their behavior? The people who "would" do this already do worse. Name one who WOULDN'T do it and will change their policy because we purportedly water boarded 3 prisoners? Name one friend who's relationship with the United States has changed because of the 3 prisoners we purportedly water boarded.
You, welch, the others who have argued against it have ignored the question every time I asked it because the answer is NO ONE! Yet you continue to use it in your arguments with the assumption the statement is true. You have to do it by assumption because that's the only way you can because there is no truth to it. NO ONE is changing their behavior or policy towards us. Sure our enemies blast it for us, but they blast us for everything else too, no difference. Countries like France that are our diplomatic enemy and military friend continue both.
Here's what we have to believe. The world sees all the Arab governments and most of the rest of the world doing far worse and far more widespread every day. Yet you keep stating how the world is going to ignore that and hate us for water boarding, not torturing a limited number of people to save lives. That just doesn't make sense and it hold no water, which is why each of you on every occasion decline to back it up.
Hail to the Redskins!
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him
Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way
GSPODS wrote:How will these suits react and respond when our American soldiers are subjected to the same "interrogation techniques" our President advocates for the politicians but not for the soldiers? Better yet, how will the suits react the first time some CIA, NSA, FBI schmuck is captured and mercilessly tortured using the same techniques our fearless (and brainless) Leader advocates? Business as usual politics says these suits will look for a political solution to a problem created by their own politics.
Again, I keep asking you and the others on your side. Welch and you in this debate in particular whiff on it every time. WHO is going to CHANGE their behavior? The people who "would" do this already do worse. Name one who WOULDN'T do it and will change their policy because we purportedly water boarded 3 prisoners? Name one friend who's relationship with the United States has changed because of the 3 prisoners we purportedly water boarded.
You, welch, the others who have argued against it have ignored the question every time I asked it because the answer is NO ONE! Yet you continue to use it in your arguments with the assumption the statement is true. You have to do it by assumption because that's the only way you can because there is no truth to it. NO ONE is changing their behavior or policy towards us. Sure our enemies blast it for us, but they blast us for everything else too, no difference. Countries like France that are our diplomatic enemy and military friend continue both.
Here's what we have to believe. The world sees all the Arab governments and most of the rest of the world doing far worse and far more widespread every day. Yet you keep stating how the world is going to ignore that and hate us for water boarding, not torturing a limited number of people to save lives. That just doesn't make sense and it hold no water, which is why each of you on every occasion decline to back it up.
Did you miss this part of the post?
GSPODS wrote:Standard Operating Procedure for the Military is to make every available effort to save lives. If these techniques save one American life, then the rest is irrelevant.
I am not arguing for or against. I suggest that everything should be handled on a case-by case basis, with the decisions being made by those in the field, not by some suit-and tie bureaucrat from an office in D.C..
Last edited by GSPODS on Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
How will these suits react and respond when our American soldiers are subjected to the same "interrogation techniques" our President advocates for the politicians but not for the soldiers?
What??? Have you forgotten that soldiers HAVE been "captured"? What has happened in EVERY SINGLE CASE (not merely among captured leaders)??? Trust me... most would gladly have accepted a few waterboarding sessions over what happened. What the hell is wrong with you???
Remember... most of those occurences were long before any hand-wringing over how mean our interogators are...
"That's a clown question, bro" - - - - - - - - - - Bryce Harper, DC Statesman "But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man That he didn't, didn't already have" - - - - - - - - - - Dewey Bunnell, America
How will these suits react and respond when our American soldiers are subjected to the same "interrogation techniques" our President advocates for the politicians but not for the soldiers?
What??? Have you forgotten that soldiers HAVE been "captured"? What has happened in EVERY SINGLE CASE (not merely among captured leaders)??? Trust me... most would gladly have accepted a few waterboarding sessions over what happened. What the hell is wrong with you???
Remember... most of those occurences were long before any hand-wringing over how mean our interogators are...
It's not the soldiers I am referring to. You, of all people, should know that. Anyone who has actively served in a military combat unit would not think twice about their position on this issue. There are several military expressions I could use, but most of them would have to be posted in Smack. I think "Kill 'Em All and Let God Sort 'em Out" probably sums it up without the four letter words and the acronyms.
My reference is to the suit and tie jerkoffs in the agencies Bush thinks should have authority the military does not have, namely the CIA, NSA, FBI. I think Bush opened the door for terrorists to actively locate, capture, and torture agents of these and other government agencies. And I wnat to see the response from Capital Hill when the same techniques Bush advocates are used on his politically appointed and intelligence-challenged friends. What will his argument / position / defense / solution be the first time one of his buddies is captured and given the "Bush thinks this is acceptable" treatment?
GSPODS wrote:Standard Operating Procedure for the Military is to make every available effort to save lives. If these techniques save one American life, then the rest is irrelevant.
I am not arguing for or against. I suggest that everything should be handled on a case-by case basis, with the decisions being made by those in the field, not by some suit-and tie bureaucrat from an office in D.C..
Your post was all over the place. But that's not what I responded to, this is:
GSPODS wrote:How will these suits react and respond when our American soldiers are subjected to the same "interrogation techniques" our President advocates for the politicians but not for the soldiers? Better yet, how will the suits react the first time some CIA, NSA, FBI schmuck is captured and mercilessly tortured using the same techniques our fearless (and brainless) Leader advocates? Business as usual politics says these suits will look for a political solution to a problem created by their own politics.
You said "a problem created by their own politics." That's clearly the question that I asked you. Back it up. Same question, again not answered. So answer it.
GSPODS wrote:most of them would have to be posted in Smack
Actually I'd started this discussion in smack before you started this forum on the same subject in the lounge, so you have a place in smack to post your thoughts to.
Hail to the Redskins!
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him
Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way
GSPODS wrote:Standard Operating Procedure for the Military is to make every available effort to save lives. If these techniques save one American life, then the rest is irrelevant.
I am not arguing for or against. I suggest that everything should be handled on a case-by case basis, with the decisions being made by those in the field, not by some suit-and tie bureaucrat from an office in D.C..
Your post was all over the place. But that's not what I responded to, this is:
GSPODS wrote:How will these suits react and respond when our American soldiers are subjected to the same "interrogation techniques" our President advocates for the politicians but not for the soldiers? Better yet, how will the suits react the first time some CIA, NSA, FBI schmuck is captured and mercilessly tortured using the same techniques our fearless (and brainless) Leader advocates? Business as usual politics says these suits will look for a political solution to a problem created by their own politics.
You said "a problem created by their own politics." That's clearly the question that I asked you. Back it up. Same question, again not answered. So answer it.
GSPODS wrote:most of them would have to be posted in Smack
Actually I'd started this discussion in smack before you started this forum on the same subject in the lounge, so you have a place in smack to post your thoughts to.
It is not now, nor has it ever been a secret that "cruel & unusual punishment" is a frequently used interrogation technique. Up until Bush had to flap his illiterate gums about it, interrogation techniques were not a matter of broadcast news. Bush didn't create black ops. The reason for the term "black ops" is that things like these are supposed to be covert and classified and on a need-to-know basis. Don't ask. Don't Tell. Don't Volunteer. It is painfully obvious that Bush never spent any actual time in the actual military actually being a soldier. Anyone out of basic training or AIT knows the "keep your mouth shut" rule. The Commander-In-Chief of our military doesn't know something taught to every E-1 the second they step on the bus to boot camp. Name, Rank, and Serial Number. That is the unclassified answer to every military question.
My reference is to the suit and tie jerkoffs in the agencies Bush thinks should have authority the military does not have, namely the CIA, NSA, FBI. I think Bush opened the door for terrorists to actively locate, capture, and torture agents of these and other government agencies. And I wnat to see the response from Capital Hill when the same techniques Bush advocates are used on his politically appointed and intelligence-challenged friends. What will his argument / position / defense / solution be the first time one of his buddies is captured and given the "Bush thinks this is acceptable" treatment?
I think my point is, it does not matter. First of all, the civilian agencies always HAVE had authority that the military does not, and I suspect that you are aware of this. The CIA and the Pentagon have always operated under different rules. This is nothing new. What is new is the attempt to discuss these issues in public.
You are correct. The President is an idiot for creating the environment in which this could happen. The Senate and Congress are idiots for permitting their petty party loyalties to overide their sacred trust to protect the nation, and further expose those on the line to harm. However, nothing in this changes the FACT that the treatment provided any of these agents, if captured, would be inhuman. It WAS inhuman in October of 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and it will be inhuman in October of 2008. The discussion over "Black ops" ( thanks) has no effect, zero, on how the murderers treat their prisoners. It was, and will be, horrible.
"That's a clown question, bro" - - - - - - - - - - Bryce Harper, DC Statesman "But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man That he didn't, didn't already have" - - - - - - - - - - Dewey Bunnell, America
Countertrey wrote:What is new is the attempt to discuss these issues in public.
The President is an idiot. The Senate and Congress are idiots.
Agreed. Our Commander-In-Chief apparently never heard of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Volunteer." Furthermore, it appears none of the Cabinet members, none of the military branch commanders, and none of the members of Congress were able to convince Bush to keep his mouth shut. So, Bush is undoubtedly an idiot, for this and countless other reasons, and Congress is a plethora of idiots with no influence and no testicles.
GSPODS wrote:It is not now, nor has it ever been a secret that "cruel & unusual punishment" is a frequently used interrogation technique. Up until Bush had to flap his illiterate gums about it, interrogation techniques were not a matter of broadcast news. Bush didn't create black ops. The reason for the term "black ops" is that things like these are supposed to be covert and classified and on a need-to-know basis. Don't ask. Don't Tell. Don't Volunteer. It is painfully obvious that Bush never spent any actual time in the actual military actually being a soldier. Anyone out of basic training or AIT knows the "keep your mouth shut" rule. The Commander-In-Chief of our military doesn't know something taught to every E-1 the second they step on the bus to boot camp. Name, Rank, and Serial Number. That is the unclassified answer to every military question.
Rant and ramble. OK. Remember the time I was pointing out in Smack you hadn't answered a question and you said it's not like it was the lounge...
Hail to the Redskins!
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him
Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way
Countertrey wrote:You are correct. The President is an idiot for creating the environment in which this could happen. The Senate and Congress are idiots for permitting their petty party loyalties to overide their sacred trust to protect the nation, and further expose those on the line to harm. However, nothing in this changes the FACT that the treatment provided any of these agents, if captured, would be inhuman. It WAS inhuman in October of 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and it will be inhuman in October of 2008. The discussion over "Black ops" ( thanks) has no effect, zero, on how the murderers treat their prisoners. It was, and will be, horrible.
Agreed on all this. Also the President is an idiot because he won't defend himself or his administration ever. He seems to think he appears Reaganesque, above the fray. Instead he appears to be clueless, uninformed and out of touch. Reagan always got in the one liners, like the "slip" when he talked about outlawing the Soviet Union, bombing begins in 5 minutes or when he said to Mondale, "there you go again" to his liberal rant.
Bush's defense and advocation of his own policies consist of his laying on the ground prostrate trying to tire his enemies out by letting them kick him until they tire, which as we can clearly see they never do. Instead the enemies of America, like the Democratic Party, use his ineptness to shape their blame America lies unopposed. He should have stood up and said that the US will not adopt things like water boarding as standard practice. But if there are lives to be saved, you bet.
And of course if both parties hadn't gotten us into the whole middle east mess in the first place this would probably be a non issue anyway.
Hail to the Redskins!
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him
Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way
May I suggest that this is not a debatable issue....constitutionally or otherwise. And that the real crying shame here is that so many can find room for debating the subject.
Whether it is or is not specifically addressed in the constitution is irrelevant to the fact that torture of any kind and for any reason is morally reprehensible behavior that should not even be considered a debatable matter, legally or otherwise. If congress passed a law legalizing child molestation....would that make such an act acceptable and legal? Of course not. Consequently, any acts of torture by nature is contrary to American values, whether specifically addressed or merely implied by all of our laws and standards.
There are many areas within the constitution specifically addressing individual rights and freedoms of the people, though most of it refers to Americans on American soil, it nonetheless identifies international treaties as lawfully binding also, and it is within the spirit of the principles of our laws which would prohibit the use of torture even in the absense of international treaties. Such is evident and true no matter how one chooses to dance around the subject. That's the long and short of the matter. In fact, we have cited other nations in violation of the Geneva Conventions for said alleged torture activities publically acknowledging our understanding and acceptance of that law as legitimate and binding. Hence the argument that attempts to suggest that waterboarding isn't torture, when we all know it is.
It never ceases to amaze me though when someone says "hell yeah..torture that SOB till he talks". Then someone responds, "but it doesn't work" which is just another way of saying it would be OK to do if it did work.
It doesn't work, that is true. But we must be clear that this is not the reason not to do it. The reason is simple. It's inhumane treatment, and by definition, un-American behavior, plain and simple, with no room for debate about reasons or definitions or justifications.
Bottom line, an unacceptable act is just plainly unjustifiable. Once you have decided to attach a justification to such an act, whatever that justification might entail, you have in effect legitimized the act itself as no longer unacceptable. Later, that justification can be adjusted to include other reasons, and it's only a matter of time before that happens.
So, today, it's OK to torture an Arab who we have good reason to believe has information about terrorist activity. Tomorrow, we do it because we suspect he does. The next day we do it as a matter of policy just in case he does. The next day, they can't find that Arab fellow they want to 'question", but they think YOU know where he's hiding, so guess what?
At some point, it will only take an angry neighbor to call the authorities and make an allegation against you because they're pissed off for some reason....and when the men in black masks kick down your door, and start waterboarding you....it will be too late to start talking about the constitution or the Geneva Conventions.
RayNAustin wrote:May I suggest that this is not a debatable issue....constitutionally or otherwise. And that the real crying shame here is that so many can find room for debating the subject.
Whether it is or is not specifically addressed in the constitution is irrelevant to the fact that torture of any kind and for any reason is morally reprehensible behavior that should not even be considered a debatable matter, legally or otherwise. If congress passed a law legalizing child molestation....would that make such an act acceptable and legal? Of course not. Consequently, any acts of torture by nature is contrary to American values, whether specifically addressed or merely implied by all of our laws and standards.
There are many areas within the constitution specifically addressing individual rights and freedoms of the people, though most of it refers to Americans on American soil, it nonetheless identifies international treaties as lawfully binding also, and it is within the spirit of the principles of our laws which would prohibit the use of torture even in the absense of international treaties. Such is evident and true no matter how one chooses to dance around the subject. That's the long and short of the matter. In fact, we have cited other nations in violation of the Geneva Conventions for said alleged torture activities publically acknowledging our understanding and acceptance of that law as legitimate and binding. Hence the argument that attempts to suggest that waterboarding isn't torture, when we all know it is.
It never ceases to amaze me though when someone says "hell yeah..torture that SOB till he talks". Then someone responds, "but it doesn't work" which is just another way of saying it would be OK to do if it did work.
It doesn't work, that is true. But we must be clear that this is not the reason not to do it. The reason is simple. It's inhumane treatment, and by definition, un-American behavior, plain and simple, with no room for debate about reasons or definitions or justifications.
Bottom line, an unacceptable act is just plainly unjustifiable. Once you have decided to attach a justification to such an act, whatever that justification might entail, you have in effect legitimized the act itself as no longer unacceptable. Later, that justification can be adjusted to include other reasons, and it's only a matter of time before that happens.
So, today, it's OK to torture an Arab who we have good reason to believe has information about terrorist activity. Tomorrow, we do it because we suspect he does. The next day we do it as a matter of policy just in case he does. The next day, they can't find that Arab fellow they want to 'question", but they think YOU know where he's hiding, so guess what?
At some point, it will only take an angry neighbor to call the authorities and make an allegation against you because they're pissed off for some reason....and when the men in black masks kick down your door, and start waterboarding you....it will be too late to start talking about the constitution or the Geneva Conventions.
RayNAustin wrote:May I suggest that this is not a debatable issue....constitutionally or otherwise. And that the real crying shame here is that so many can find room for debating the subject.
Whether it is or is not specifically addressed in the constitution is irrelevant to the fact that torture of any kind and for any reason is morally reprehensible behavior that should not even be considered a debatable matter, legally or otherwise. If congress passed a law legalizing child molestation....would that make such an act acceptable and legal? Of course not. Consequently, any acts of torture by nature is contrary to American values, whether specifically addressed or merely implied by all of our laws and standards.
There are many areas within the constitution specifically addressing individual rights and freedoms of the people, though most of it refers to Americans on American soil, it nonetheless identifies international treaties as lawfully binding also, and it is within the spirit of the principles of our laws which would prohibit the use of torture even in the absense of international treaties. Such is evident and true no matter how one chooses to dance around the subject. That's the long and short of the matter. In fact, we have cited other nations in violation of the Geneva Conventions for said alleged torture activities publically acknowledging our understanding and acceptance of that law as legitimate and binding. Hence the argument that attempts to suggest that waterboarding isn't torture, when we all know it is.
It never ceases to amaze me though when someone says "hell yeah..torture that SOB till he talks". Then someone responds, "but it doesn't work" which is just another way of saying it would be OK to do if it did work.
It doesn't work, that is true. But we must be clear that this is not the reason not to do it. The reason is simple. It's inhumane treatment, and by definition, un-American behavior, plain and simple, with no room for debate about reasons or definitions or justifications.
Bottom line, an unacceptable act is just plainly unjustifiable. Once you have decided to attach a justification to such an act, whatever that justification might entail, you have in effect legitimized the act itself as no longer unacceptable. Later, that justification can be adjusted to include other reasons, and it's only a matter of time before that happens.
So, today, it's OK to torture an Arab who we have good reason to believe has information about terrorist activity. Tomorrow, we do it because we suspect he does. The next day we do it as a matter of policy just in case he does. The next day, they can't find that Arab fellow they want to 'question", but they think YOU know where he's hiding, so guess what?
At some point, it will only take an angry neighbor to call the authorities and make an allegation against you because they're pissed off for some reason....and when the men in black masks kick down your door, and start waterboarding you....it will be too late to start talking about the constitution or the Geneva Conventions.
That, my friend, is heroic.
That's an opinion. Another one is that cowardice is doing nothing while good people die because that's easier then thinking and making hard decisions. Let people die and then pat ourselves on the back for our "morality" which ended up being the easy choice. Our enemies see us weak and our friends as naive.
Hail to the Redskins!
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him
Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way
It's inhumane treatment, and by definition, un-American behavior, plain and simple, with no room for debate about reasons or definitions or justifications.
You, sir, are clearly ignorant of American history. Without comment on my opinion right or wrong, and like it or not, American History is riddled with the use of torture. As one example, ask the Maori. Ask the Comanche. Ask Kunte Kinte. Not hard at all to find examples.
Un-American behavior? You must ignore history in order to say that. You can call torture many things. Un-American behavior is, unfortunately, not one of them.
BTW... flying 3 airliners into office buildings is not only inhumane, but inhuman. Should I go on?
"That's a clown question, bro" - - - - - - - - - - Bryce Harper, DC Statesman "But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man That he didn't, didn't already have" - - - - - - - - - - Dewey Bunnell, America
Countertrey wrote:Un-American behavior? You must ignore history in order to say that. You can call torture many things. Un-American behavior is, unfortunately, not one of them.
It seemed pretty clear to me that RayNAustin was talking about American ideals and principles, not simply what Americans have done (or not done) at different points in history.
BTW... flying 3 airliners into office buildings is not only inhumane, but inhuman. Should I go on?
Why is that relevant? Is the point that we can respond in kind?
KazooSkinsFan wrote:That's an opinion. Another one is that cowardice is doing nothing while good people die because that's easier then thinking and making hard decisions. Let people die and then pat ourselves on the back for our "morality" which ended up being the easy choice. Our enemies see us weak and our friends as naive.
So it's naive, weak, and the easy way out not to torture POWs? Or were you getting at something else. . .
Rant and ramble. OK. Remember the time I was pointing out in Smack you hadn't answered a question and you said it's not like it was the lounge...
