Approved at the highest level
-
This issue is a hellovalot more complex than most of the previous posters want to admit. There has been torture before now and anyone who thinks that any country's hands are clean in this regard probably needs a head-cleaning. The US had CIA and Special Forces guys operating in Cambodia that routinely did things that most of us don't want to think about. The North Vietnamese dailey carried out torture that suggested an utter contempt for human life and humanity. The atrocities being visted on civilians (foreign and domestic) and troops captured in combat by the various Islamic factions in Iraq are disgusting and infuriating and cry out for retribution. What the U.S. has done in secret prisons shames me, and makes me worried for what happens when/if a full-scale war occurs and Iran or whoever decides it's payback time. It bothers me that men like Bush and Cheney who have no combat experience and do not have the slightest idea what it is like to be in mortal danger think that patriotism and sadism are the same thing. It also bothers me that someone like Hillary Clinton who makes up stories about being under sniper fire announces that she knows that torture is never the right thing to do.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
There has been torture before now and anyone who thinks that any country's hands are clean in this regard probably needs a head-cleaning.
You are no doubt correct that individuals, out of perceived necessity or anger, have tortured prisoners in the past and there will be those who will do it in the future. What is different in this war is that a regime of torture was created at the highest levels of the US government as a key component in this 'War on Terror'. Torture has never been US policy before.
-
Oakman wrote:
There has been torture before now and anyone who thinks that any country's hands are clean in this regard probably needs a head-cleaning.
You are no doubt correct that individuals, out of perceived necessity or anger, have tortured prisoners in the past and there will be those who will do it in the future. What is different in this war is that a regime of torture was created at the highest levels of the US government as a key component in this 'War on Terror'. Torture has never been US policy before.
oilFactotum wrote:
Torture has never been US policy before.
We have also never been under a sustained, orgainzed terrorist threat of this magnitude before. If you would prefer we do things the old fashioned way and just carpet bomb or nuke people (while otherwise being really nice guys), I'm ok with that also. But, if not, new threats require new counter measures. The terrorists are well aware of our traditional rules of engagment and very much depend upon us mindlessly adhering to them.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
digital man wrote:
That is patent nonsense.
Of course it isn't. After WWII we executed people who did the exact same things that our government has authorized. Our laws - the War Crimes act of 1996, for example - and our treaty obligations are clear.
digital man wrote:
The West is under constant threat (and attack) from people who would not and do not hesitate to kill and maim as many innocents as they can in the furtherance of their cause.
It's not the first time. And we've always been able to treat our prisoners humanely.
digital man wrote:
I would (naively) hope that the 'tea and biscuits' approach would win the day I know damn well it won't.
You know it won't? I doubt it. It's always worked before, it will continue to work now.
digital man wrote:
applaud the politicians courage
Courage? Resorted to torture and ignoring the rule of lawis criminal and cowardly.
digital man wrote:
in the face of liberal cowards like you who would rather roll over and let the fanatics win because it is easier on your conscience than having to face reality and fight them.
Do you really believe what you are saying?! We can only win if we torture? That it is cowardly to resist becoming just like our enemies? What a bizarre bipolar world you have created for yourself - 'We must torture or surrender'. :wtf:
oilFactotum wrote:
After WWII we executed people who did the exact same things that our government has authorized
Wouldn't executing someone be worse than water boarding them?
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
oilFactotum wrote:
Torture has never been US policy before.
We have also never been under a sustained, orgainzed terrorist threat of this magnitude before. If you would prefer we do things the old fashioned way and just carpet bomb or nuke people (while otherwise being really nice guys), I'm ok with that also. But, if not, new threats require new counter measures. The terrorists are well aware of our traditional rules of engagment and very much depend upon us mindlessly adhering to them.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
We have also never been under a sustained, orgainzed terrorist threat of this magnitude before.
That's true - this is probably the largest terrorist threat that we've encountered - a few thousand guys led by another guy hiding in a cave. So, what you are saying is technically true. What you are suggesting is utterly false. We have indeed faced such evil before, this is not unique.
Stan Shannon wrote:
new threats require new counter measures
While it is true that a conventional war of the type we fought against the Nazis would not be appropriate to this war, tossing out the rule of law and descending into war crimes are not the appropriate 'new counter measures'.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
After WWII we executed people who did the exact same things that our government has authorized
Wouldn't executing someone be worse than water boarding them?
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
I think that is a question that you need to answer.
-
Oakman wrote:
It bothers me that men like Bush and Cheney ... think that patriotism and sadism are the same thing.
It bothers me that men like you are incapable of distinquishing between criticism and libel.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Oakman wrote:
There has been torture before now and anyone who thinks that any country's hands are clean in this regard probably needs a head-cleaning.
You are no doubt correct that individuals, out of perceived necessity or anger, have tortured prisoners in the past and there will be those who will do it in the future. What is different in this war is that a regime of torture was created at the highest levels of the US government as a key component in this 'War on Terror'. Torture has never been US policy before.
oilFactotum wrote:
What is different in this war is that a regime of torture was created at the highest levels of the US government as a key component in this 'War on Terror'. Torture has never been US policy before.
I am afraid that's incorrect. As I already alluded to, the CIA and Special Forces used torture routinely to get information from civilians in Vietnam and Laos. It's possible the no-one told Johnson or Nixon, but I doubt it.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
digital man wrote:
I, for one, applaud the politicians courage (in this context) in the face of liberal cowards like you who would rather roll over and let the fanatics win because it is easier on your conscience than having to face reality and fight them.
Any sane person would. People like Oily are nothing more than propagandists. It isn't that he would rather let the terrorists win than fight them, it is that he views the "right" in our own political system as being the greater threat. Bush, Cheney, etc, represent to him a validation of all of his long standing anti-conservative prejudices. IMO, it is clear that the Bush administration has not handled the situation as well as it could have been. And they deserve criticism. But just as clearly, dealing with a threat as elusive as that which is coming out of the middle east is going to require reevaluating the finer legal details which our current processes are based upon. We need leadership that has the courage to 'push the envelope' in that regard. The problem is that anything a conservative president might do which in any way can be construed to be a denial of some ridiculous definition of civil rights, is going to be twisted into a Nazi like quest to destroy western civilization by the vile little Oilys of our society. The really scary part is that if a left leaning democrat were doing the precise same thing, you wouldn't hear a pip out of him. Thanks for helping to shout him down.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
People like Oily are nothing more than propagandists
A propagandist? Hmmm, perhaps. Perhaps I am a propagandist for what makes America great. It's respect for the rule of law, it's desire to do the right thing and it's respect of human rights.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It isn't that he would rather let the terrorists win than fight them
You're right. That is a false dichotomy. I know we need to fight. I also know that we will never lose against terrorists as long as we don't surrender to our own base impulses.
Stan Shannon wrote:
it is that he views the "right"...
Still think you can read minds? :rolleyes:
-
digital man wrote:
That is patent nonsense.
Of course it isn't. After WWII we executed people who did the exact same things that our government has authorized. Our laws - the War Crimes act of 1996, for example - and our treaty obligations are clear.
digital man wrote:
The West is under constant threat (and attack) from people who would not and do not hesitate to kill and maim as many innocents as they can in the furtherance of their cause.
It's not the first time. And we've always been able to treat our prisoners humanely.
digital man wrote:
I would (naively) hope that the 'tea and biscuits' approach would win the day I know damn well it won't.
You know it won't? I doubt it. It's always worked before, it will continue to work now.
digital man wrote:
applaud the politicians courage
Courage? Resorted to torture and ignoring the rule of lawis criminal and cowardly.
digital man wrote:
in the face of liberal cowards like you who would rather roll over and let the fanatics win because it is easier on your conscience than having to face reality and fight them.
Do you really believe what you are saying?! We can only win if we torture? That it is cowardly to resist becoming just like our enemies? What a bizarre bipolar world you have created for yourself - 'We must torture or surrender'. :wtf:
oilFactotum wrote:
After WWII we executed people who did the exact same things that our government has authorized
Different world, old chap. These ar enot the same times, not the same enemies and not the same consequences.
oilFactotum wrote:
It's not the first time. And we've always been able to treat our prisoners humanely.
Oh but it is the first time we have had to face an enemy of this type. It's been a long time since we could either use gunboat diplomacy or win by sheer weight of numbers or technological superiority. And I'm pretty sure that we have not always been humane to every prisoner when the need arises.
oilFactotum wrote:
You know it won't? I doubt it. It's always worked before, it will continue to work now.
Evidence?
oilFactotum wrote:
Courage? Resorted to torture and ignoring the rule of lawis criminal and cowardly.
Where have they flouted the law? They make the law!
oilFactotum wrote:
We can only win if we torture
Please point out where that is what I said: you are taking what I've said and twisting it to suit your own arguments. Pity.
oilFactotum wrote:
That it is cowardly to resist becoming just like our enemies?
We're not becoming like our enemies; we're dealing with them to save our own lives. I'm pretty sure that, when push comes to shove, I'll kill them before I let them kill me. You'd be lying to yourself if you said otherwise. And if part of the answer is to resort to torture to save lives then torture away. Rather them than us.
-
That is so sad if you really believe that.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
We have also never been under a sustained, orgainzed terrorist threat of this magnitude before.
That's true - this is probably the largest terrorist threat that we've encountered - a few thousand guys led by another guy hiding in a cave. So, what you are saying is technically true. What you are suggesting is utterly false. We have indeed faced such evil before, this is not unique.
Stan Shannon wrote:
new threats require new counter measures
While it is true that a conventional war of the type we fought against the Nazis would not be appropriate to this war, tossing out the rule of law and descending into war crimes are not the appropriate 'new counter measures'.
oilFactotum wrote:
While it is true that a conventional war of the type we fought against the Nazis would not be appropriate to this war, tossing out the rule of law and descending into war crimes are not the appropriate 'new counter measures'.
So we can't fight 'em the old fashioned way and we can't fight 'em in any new way unless the law says its ok. So our ability to defend ourselves is restricted by the law, while the bads guys ability to attack us isn't. That we either have a choice between total war, or not doing anything other than what the law says is ok. Thats fucking insane.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
People like Oily are nothing more than propagandists
A propagandist? Hmmm, perhaps. Perhaps I am a propagandist for what makes America great. It's respect for the rule of law, it's desire to do the right thing and it's respect of human rights.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It isn't that he would rather let the terrorists win than fight them
You're right. That is a false dichotomy. I know we need to fight. I also know that we will never lose against terrorists as long as we don't surrender to our own base impulses.
Stan Shannon wrote:
it is that he views the "right"...
Still think you can read minds? :rolleyes:
oilFactotum wrote:
I also know that we will never lose against terrorists as long as we don't surrender to our own base impulses.
And that is where you are so completely wrong. Anyone who imposes rules upon their own behavior which an enemy is free to willfully ignore will most certainly lose. Defeat is inevitable.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
I think that is a question that you need to answer.
oilFactotum wrote:
think that is a question that you need to answer.
OK. Yes, execution is worse. Therefore, by executing people for waterboarding, we were more evil than they were.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
oilFactotum wrote:
While it is true that a conventional war of the type we fought against the Nazis would not be appropriate to this war, tossing out the rule of law and descending into war crimes are not the appropriate 'new counter measures'.
So we can't fight 'em the old fashioned way and we can't fight 'em in any new way unless the law says its ok. So our ability to defend ourselves is restricted by the law, while the bads guys ability to attack us isn't. That we either have a choice between total war, or not doing anything other than what the law says is ok. Thats fucking insane.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
So we can't fight 'em the old fashioned way and we can't fight 'em in any new way unless the law says its ok.
What do you mean "we?" You're on record as hiding out in the Navy so you wouldn't have to fight. When did you develop courage?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
So we can't fight 'em the old fashioned way and we can't fight 'em in any new way unless the law says its ok.
What do you mean "we?" You're on record as hiding out in the Navy so you wouldn't have to fight. When did you develop courage?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
You're on record as hiding out in the Navy so you wouldn't have to fight.
I did indeed. Thats called honesty. Maybe you should try it some time. However, I did serve. In fact, I am a Vietnam veteran, I received combat pay, have my little vietnam campaign and service ribbons, in addition to serving some 10 years in the field artillery in the National Guard and Army Reserves. So, coward or not, I ultimately played my part. If nothing else, it earns me the right to an opinion.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Oakman wrote:
You're on record as hiding out in the Navy so you wouldn't have to fight.
I did indeed. Thats called honesty. Maybe you should try it some time. However, I did serve. In fact, I am a Vietnam veteran, I received combat pay, have my little vietnam campaign and service ribbons, in addition to serving some 10 years in the field artillery in the National Guard and Army Reserves. So, coward or not, I ultimately played my part. If nothing else, it earns me the right to an opinion.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
In fact, I am a Vietnam veteran, I received combat pay, have my little vietnam campaign and service ribbons
Stanley, you make John Kerry look like a John Wayne type hero.
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, coward or not, I ultimately played my part. If nothing else, it earns me the right to an opinion.
Could be, but imho, Your part was a walk-on and it doesn't give you the right to talk about "we" fighting.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
oilFactotum wrote:
I also know that we will never lose against terrorists as long as we don't surrender to our own base impulses.
And that is where you are so completely wrong. Anyone who imposes rules upon their own behavior which an enemy is free to willfully ignore will most certainly lose. Defeat is inevitable.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
And that is where you are so completely wrong.
On that point we will simply have to disagree.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
After WWII we executed people who did the exact same things that our government has authorized
Different world, old chap. These ar enot the same times, not the same enemies and not the same consequences.
oilFactotum wrote:
It's not the first time. And we've always been able to treat our prisoners humanely.
Oh but it is the first time we have had to face an enemy of this type. It's been a long time since we could either use gunboat diplomacy or win by sheer weight of numbers or technological superiority. And I'm pretty sure that we have not always been humane to every prisoner when the need arises.
oilFactotum wrote:
You know it won't? I doubt it. It's always worked before, it will continue to work now.
Evidence?
oilFactotum wrote:
Courage? Resorted to torture and ignoring the rule of lawis criminal and cowardly.
Where have they flouted the law? They make the law!
oilFactotum wrote:
We can only win if we torture
Please point out where that is what I said: you are taking what I've said and twisting it to suit your own arguments. Pity.
oilFactotum wrote:
That it is cowardly to resist becoming just like our enemies?
We're not becoming like our enemies; we're dealing with them to save our own lives. I'm pretty sure that, when push comes to shove, I'll kill them before I let them kill me. You'd be lying to yourself if you said otherwise. And if part of the answer is to resort to torture to save lives then torture away. Rather them than us.
digital man wrote:
Different world...
digital man wrote:
Oh but it is the first time...
Oh please. "9/11 Changed Everything". "Never Before Have We Faced Such Evil". " our enemies are uniquely, extra-special super-duper evil." It just won't fly.
digital man wrote:
Evidence?
Here's a start[^] The evidence is all over the place, just a google away. What I would like to see (and never have) from the torture apologists is the evidence that torture is more effective.
digital man wrote:
Where have they flouted the law?
Are you serious?! The illegal wiretapping from just a few years ago and torture to name just two.
digital man wrote:
They make the law!
In what version of the constitution does the executive branch make law?
digital man wrote:
Please point out where that is what I said: you are taking what I've said and twisting it to suit your own arguments. Pity.
Get real. It was a question, not a statement. How else would you have me interpret this statement of yours:
digital man wrote:
in the face of liberal cowards like you who would rather roll over and let the fanatics win because it is easier on your conscience than having to face reality and fight them.
I oppose torture therefore I "would rather roll over and let the fanatics win". That very clearly says to me that to win we must torture.
digital man wrote:
if part of the answer is to resort to torture
That's the thing, isn't it? It has never been part of the answer.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
What is different in this war is that a regime of torture was created at the highest levels of the US government as a key component in this 'War on Terror'. Torture has never been US policy before.
I am afraid that's incorrect. As I already alluded to, the CIA and Special Forces used torture routinely to get information from civilians in Vietnam and Laos. It's possible the no-one told Johnson or Nixon, but I doubt it.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
That may or may not be true. I can niether support not disporve this claim. If it's true, what conclusion are you drawing from this fact?
-
That may or may not be true. I can niether support not disporve this claim. If it's true, what conclusion are you drawing from this fact?