Jump to content

Americans love torture


TexasTiger

Recommended Posts

WOW! SO the rule of law means nothing to you?

Stop staying dumb stuff. Something being legal doesn't make it right. At one time slavery and Jim Crow laws were perfectly legal. They were morally wrong. Abortion is currently legal. It is morally wrong.

If you're going to engage me in debate, don't put forth completely laughable retorts like this.

Like I said, Im just glad you have no input. For the record, our system is based on a RULE OF LAW...in case you haven't noticed the Bible is not the guiding principle in our secular humanist society. I figured you'd be one who would be a proponent of keeping the govt and religion totally separated. i guess I was wrong. let me ask you this...would you favor a Christian Theocracy in American rather than a Constitutional Republic?

There you go again. Believing that morals and ethics and laws invariably must intersect is not equivalent to wanting a Christian Theocracy. The question is not whether your will allow morality to influence your laws. The only question is, whose morality will influence it?

Are you unwilling to approve fighting for the protection of Americans strictly on religious grounds?

I've said no such thing.

One other thing..you keep referring to "evil means" Was the murder of 3000 Americans equally evil or not as evil as employing EITs?

Of course murdering 3000 Americans was evil. What sort of head injury would you need to have suffered to think that believing torture to be evil somehow would alter that?

I was trying to understand the twisted perspective that would lead someone to having such a bad case of 'heartburn" over our CIA using LEGAL techniques to acquire information immediately on the heels of 3000 Americans being murdered and having intel telling them a second wave was highly likely. Thats all. i still dont get it but Im fairly certain you'll agree, I'm simply not smart enough. :bow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 190
  • Created
  • Last Reply

WOW! SO the rule of law means nothing to you? Like I said, Im just glad you have no input. For the record, our system is based on a RULE OF LAW...in case you haven't noticed the Bible is not the guiding principle in our secular humanist society.

Torture is illegal...

Details... ;)

If it is illegal why did 2 different Justice Depts arrive at the fact that the EITs were not torture? Torture is illegal and THAT is the basis of the debate. What was done was deemed legal by both DoJs but, if we've learned ANYTHNG about the Obama admn, they would have LOVED to have found it illegal so they could have prosecuted someone over it.

If it's legal why did the CIA create black sites and keep the details from congress and the American public. Why don't we use EITs on our own citizens?

ALL of that was investigated kemosabe and BOTH DoJs found nothing to prosecute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WOW! SO the rule of law means nothing to you? Like I said, Im just glad you have no input. For the record, our system is based on a RULE OF LAW...in case you haven't noticed the Bible is not the guiding principle in our secular humanist society.

Torture is illegal...

Details... ;)/>

If it is illegal why did 2 different Justice Depts arrive at the fact that the EITs were not torture? Torture is illegal and THAT is the basis of the debate. What was done was deemed legal by both DoJs but, if we've learned ANYTHNG about the Obama admn, they would have LOVED to have found it illegal so they could have prosecuted someone over it.

If it's legal why did the CIA create black sites and keep the details from congress and the American public. Why don't we use EITs on our own citizens?

Wonder what crimes we could get Blue and Raptor to confess to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WOW! SO the rule of law means nothing to you? Like I said, Im just glad you have no input. For the record, our system is based on a RULE OF LAW...in case you haven't noticed the Bible is not the guiding principle in our secular humanist society.

Torture is illegal...

Details... ;)

If it is illegal why did 2 different Justice Depts arrive at the fact that the EITs were not torture? Torture is illegal and THAT is the basis of the debate. What was done was deemed legal by both DoJs but, if we've learned ANYTHNG about the Obama admn, they would have LOVED to have found it illegal so they could have prosecuted someone over it.

If it's legal why did the CIA create black sites and keep the details from congress and the American public. Why don't we use EITs on our own citizens?

ALL of that was investigated kemosabe and BOT DoJs found nothing to prosecute.

Cool then why don't we use EITs on our own citizens. Certainly since it's sooooooooo effective, police departments would love to use it on a deranged criminal who has a body buried somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh and you might want to find another defense rather than "but, but, but, the DOJ said!" Well the DOJ said: Bush administration Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Friday that it appeared that the Central Intelligence Agency had overstepped Justice Department guidance offered by the agency on the use of harsh interrogation techniques.

“You know, we provided a guidance, and, you know, it was up to the CIA to comply with that guidance. As I started hearing about some of the items in the report, I became a little — I became troubled, because some of those things, some of what was being referenced appear beyond the guidance,” Gonzales said on NewsMaxTV’s “Steve Malzberg Show.

Gonzales was White House counsel when the Justice Department issued its memos on the CIA’s ability to use torture. He later became Attorney General.

He also said that the drone program — which President Obama has supported — was likely as damaging to America’s reputation abroad as waterboarding.

His comments were first reported by BuzzFeed News. They come days after Senate Democrats released the executive summary of a report detailing the CIA’s interrogation practices. The report’s authors found that the agency’s tactics had sometimes constituted torture and were more widespread than previously knownhttp://thehill.com/policy/defense/227030-bush-attorney-general-says-cia-overstepped-legal-guidance?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WOW! SO the rule of law means nothing to you? Like I said, Im just glad you have no input. For the record, our system is based on a RULE OF LAW...in case you haven't noticed the Bible is not the guiding principle in our secular humanist society.

Torture is illegal...

Details... ;)/>

If it is illegal why did 2 different Justice Depts arrive at the fact that the EITs were not torture? Torture is illegal and THAT is the basis of the debate. What was done was deemed legal by both DoJs but, if we've learned ANYTHNG about the Obama admn, they would have LOVED to have found it illegal so they could have prosecuted someone over it.

If it's legal why did the CIA create black sites and keep the details from congress and the American public. Why don't we use EITs on our own citizens?

ALL of that was investigated kemosabe and BOTH DoJs found nothing to prosecute.

You keep mischaracterizing this issue. The DOJ decided not to scapegoat underlings that did what the executive branch authorized. That's not even close to saying we didn't torture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was trying to understand the twisted perspective that would lead someone to having such a bad case of 'heartburn" over our CIA using LEGAL techniques to acquire information immediately on the heels of 3000 Americans being murdered and having intel telling them a second wave was highly likely. Thats all. i still dont get it but Im fairly certain you'll agree, I'm simply not smart enough. :bow:

I've not fully reached a final conclusion on whether you're not smart enough to get it or are being deliberately obtuse.

But congrats on your perfect record of failing to address any actual argument someone puts forth. You really ought to ditch the forums altogether and just have these debates with yourself in a mirror.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like the back and forth but a more serious question.

What do you think about drone strikes in countries not called Iraq or Afghanistan that kill operatives of terror and cause collateral damage? I'm being serious here...not trying to derail this wonderful discussion.

I am conflicted. It's much more ambiguous from a moral standpoint than torturing prisoners. There is no "equivalence" IMO.

In war we have often bombed or shelled with the sure knowledge that "collateral damage" will be inevitable. Does actually seeing the "collateral damage" before impact change the morality of the action? I am inclined to say no.

But I also recognize that undeclared, asymmetric wars come with a lot of moral ambiguities. Things were much simpler when dealing with existential war with a nation-state.

This probably deserves it's own thread.

When in the heat of a war with a determined foe, i am not sure that collateral damage bombing is not an overall good.

Look, carpet bombing Dresden in WWII was considered a war crime to some. I dont think so. I think it showed the German people we were ready to be as savage as they had been to so many millions of others. After Dresden, the face of reality changed in Germany. They knew what was coming and i am convinced that the more intelligent German Army officers and men knew that fighting harder was just prolonging the inevitable defeat.

Well, I'll respectfully disagree. I think history shows that strategic bombing is not nearly as effective in undermining morale as one might assume. I wouldn't go quite so far as to declare it a war crime (where exactly do you draw that line?) but the ratio of cost in lives and architecture to whatever benefits accrued was way out of line. I was a uniquely historical and beautiful city full of refugees. It was a bad decision.

But let's not hijack the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Call me a liar again and it'll be the last time you do it here.

2. The DOJ is hardly a disinterested, uninvested third party here. Plus, "legal" and "moral" are not the synonyms. It also helps when you get to decide what the meaning of a word is for legal purposes.

3. That you think I'm a "lib" utterly cuts your credibility off at the knees. You couldn't be more clueless if you called yourself Cher and hung out with Alicia Silverstone.

You are a liberal......very liberal. Get used to being described as you are.....liberal.

If there were ANY credence to your assertions of torture the Obama administration would have fulfilled the demands that the left made to prosecute those involved, which never happened and never will.

He says that like it is a bad thing...

Look ET, we as a nation survived from 1783 until 2001 without condoning what is generally considered TORTURE OR DRONING.

It is not who we are as a nation.

He acts like I really care about being called a liberal. It doesn't upset me - it just makes me think you're an idiot if you do. Or in a more charitable light, a complete and total n00b.

Just consider it a compliment. ;D

(From an idiot) ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny thing is we have the morals to not beat a terrorist but we didn't when we dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. The worst of all war crimes. It saved American lives they claimed...

Oh it did. Japan was quite prepared to fight to the last woman or child. (Not necessarily all of the people felt that way, but their leadership certainly did.)

But you make a very good point. War is chock full of moral ambiguities, which is what makes it so terrible. Unfortunately we obviously haven't grown out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fully support what was done because it was not torture & because it worked.

Win-win.

You have an enormous capacity for delusion.

Rather reminiscent of how Bill Clinton selectively re-defined terms to delude himself into believing he was being truthful. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" in his mind was the truth because he just redefined "sexual relations" to not include oral sex. Funny that Raptor of all people would follow his lead.

Well, as Raptor might say, it depends on what your definition of "is" is. ;D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny thing is we have the morals to not beat a terrorist but we didn't when we dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. The worst of all war crimes. It saved American lives they claimed...

Oh it did. Japan was quite prepared to fight to the last woman or child. (Not necessarily all of the people felt that way, but their leadership certainly did.)

But you make a very good point. War is chock full of moral ambiguities, which is what makes it so terrible. Unfortunately we obviously haven't grown out of it.

At the same time, war hysteria was an integral part of 1984 for a reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WOW! SO the rule of law means nothing to you? Like I said, Im just glad you have no input. For the record, our system is based on a RULE OF LAW...in case you haven't noticed the Bible is not the guiding principle in our secular humanist society.

Torture is illegal...

Details... ;)/>

Let me know when the first person goes to trial for this. I'll be interested to see how many accessories there are. Lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny thing is we have the morals to not beat a terrorist but we didn't when we dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. The worst of all war crimes. It saved American lives they claimed...

And there are those who would say that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were not necessary and that we should not have annihilated two civilian population centers. They did not fit within the framework of the Just War Doctrine. But that's a discussion for another time and another thread. The point is, if the only criteria that matters is "saves American lives" then there really isn't any option, no matter how deplorable or savage, that isn't on the table.

I'm not a political, war ethics philosopher unlike some on here but I earned my CIB while I deployed so I may be biased or too passionate on the subject. I'm not a biblical nut either but my philosophy is "eye for eye" "tooth for tooth". We can't let morals hold us back when interrogating terrorists because they are the same people that killed 3,000 people in one day. To hell with em. They treat our POW's like s***. I've seen countless classified videos where they torture and kill our soldiers, videos that our government wouldn't dare to put on mainstream news networks. So it would be against our interests to protect them.

Thanks for your service. Then you know from your training how to treat a combatant once he has been pulled from the battlefield. Remember My Lai in Vietnam?

I was trained to not take prisoners. Just to show you how times have changed. Yes, I remember studying about My Lai... Another black eye for America.

I hear you loud and clear. You are an agent of the state on the battlefield projecting the war plan as set forth by your government and leadership. A CIA agent at a black site in Romania is not. That's my argument.

I disagree but that's not uncommon to hear this from a Naval Officer or someone affiliated with a sea bearing background. It's a different set of circumstances on the battlefield and I'm sure your SEAL teams know this full well. I trained with them and they are outstanding soldiers of the sea.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like the back and forth but a more serious question.

What do you think about drone strikes in countries not called Iraq or Afghanistan that kill operatives of terror and cause collateral damage? I'm being serious here...not trying to derail this wonderful discussion.

I am conflicted. It's much more ambiguous from a moral standpoint than torturing prisoners. There is no "equivalence" IMO.

In war we have often bombed or shelled with the sure knowledge that "collateral damage" will be inevitable. Does actually seeing the "collateral damage" before impact change the morality of the action? I am inclined to say no.

But I also recognize that undeclared, asymmetric wars come with a lot of moral ambiguities. Things were much simpler when dealing with existential war with a nation-state.

This probably deserves it's own thread.

Rendition? I mean, if we are to aim at former Bush Admin types we have to also aim at the current Admins ability to shift responsibility by using rendition as well. I'm just trying to understand the real differences here between killing people and allowing someone to live after EIT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny thing is we have the morals to not beat a terrorist but we didn't when we dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. The worst of all war crimes. It saved American lives they claimed...

You are confusing the actions of an intelligence agency conducting counter terrorism to a military action.

Their missions are the same, correct? I'm just a bit to hard corps I guess? I want the US to defeat the enemy and use whatever measures needed to do so within reason. I don't see EIT as beyond reason in relation to terrorists because like the Nazis they have no moral compass and the Geneva Convention is irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny thing is we have the morals to not beat a terrorist but we didn't when we dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. The worst of all war crimes. It saved American lives they claimed...

And there are those who would say that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were not necessary and that we should not have annihilated two civilian population centers. They did not fit within the framework of the Just War Doctrine. But that's a discussion for another time and another thread. The point is, if the only criteria that matters is "saves American lives" then there really isn't any option, no matter how deplorable or savage, that isn't on the table.

I'm not a political, war ethics philosopher unlike some on here but I earned my CIB while I deployed so I may be biased or too passionate on the subject. I'm not a biblical nut either but my philosophy is "eye for eye" "tooth for tooth". We can't let morals hold us back when interrogating terrorists because they are the same people that killed 3,000 people in one day. To hell with em. They treat our POW's like s***. I've seen countless classified videos where they torture and kill our soldiers, videos that our government wouldn't dare to put on mainstream news networks. So it would be against our interests to protect them.

Thanks for your service. Then you know from your training how to treat a combatant once he has been pulled from the battlefield. Remember My Lai in Vietnam?

I was trained to not take prisoners. Just to show you how times have changed. Yes, I remember studying about My Lai... Another black eye for America.

I hear you loud and clear. You are an agent of the state on the battlefield projecting the war plan as set forth by your government and leadership. A CIA agent at a black site in Romania is not. That's my argument.

I disagree but that's not uncommon to hear this from a Naval Officer or someone affiliated with a sea bearing background. It's a different set of circumstances on the battlefield and I'm sure your SEAL teams know this full well. I trained with them and they are outstanding soldiers of the sea.

I really dont want to rehash everything. Do some reading on just wars and the law of warfare. Also go back in this thread and read the testimony from the former JAG of the Navy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WOW! SO the rule of law means nothing to you? Like I said, Im just glad you have no input. For the record, our system is based on a RULE OF LAW...in case you haven't noticed the Bible is not the guiding principle in our secular humanist society.

Torture is illegal...

Details... ;)/>

Let me know when the first person goes to trial for this. I'll be interested to see how many accessories there are. Lol

Frankly, this has less to do with personal guilt than it does institutional guilt. And our institutions are a reflection of us, whether we like it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like the back and forth but a more serious question.

What do you think about drone strikes in countries not called Iraq or Afghanistan that kill operatives of terror and cause collateral damage? I'm being serious here...not trying to derail this wonderful discussion.

I am conflicted. It's much more ambiguous from a moral standpoint than torturing prisoners. There is no "equivalence" IMO.

In war we have often bombed or shelled with the sure knowledge that "collateral damage" will be inevitable. Does actually seeing the "collateral damage" before impact change the morality of the action? I am inclined to say no.

But I also recognize that undeclared, asymmetric wars come with a lot of moral ambiguities. Things were much simpler when dealing with existential war with a nation-state.

This probably deserves it's own thread.

Rendition? I mean, if we are to aim at former Bush Admin types we have to also aim at the current Admins ability to shift responsibility by using rendition as well. I'm just trying to understand the real differences here between killing people and allowing someone to live after EIT.

Sorry, I don't understand your response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WOW! SO the rule of law means nothing to you? Like I said, Im just glad you have no input. For the record, our system is based on a RULE OF LAW...in case you haven't noticed the Bible is not the guiding principle in our secular humanist society.

Torture is illegal...

Boy. He really walked into that one. ;D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WOW! SO the rule of law means nothing to you? Like I said, Im just glad you have no input. For the record, our system is based on a RULE OF LAW...in case you haven't noticed the Bible is not the guiding principle in our secular humanist society.

Torture is illegal...

Details... ;)

If it is illegal why did 2 different Justice Depts arrive at the fact that the EITs were not torture? Torture is illegal and THAT is the basis of the debate. What was done was deemed legal by both DoJs but, if we've learned ANYTHNG about the Obama admn, they would have LOVED to have found it illegal so they could have prosecuted someone over it.

Actually, I bet the "departments" were loaded with dissenters. If you want to answer this question you have to examine the individuals who authorized that opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was trying to understand the twisted perspective that would lead someone to having such a bad case of 'heartburn" over our CIA using LEGAL techniques to acquire information immediately on the heels of 3000 Americans being murdered and having intel telling them a second wave was highly likely. Thats all. i still dont get it but Im fairly certain you'll agree, I'm simply not smart enough. :bow:

I've not fully reached a final conclusion on whether you're not smart enough to get it or are being deliberately obtuse.

But congrats on your perfect record of failing to address any actual argument someone puts forth. You really ought to ditch the forums altogether and just have these debates with yourself in a mirror.

Blue is way too consistent to be deliberately obtuse. You know that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny thing is we have the morals to not beat a terrorist but we didn't when we dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. The worst of all war crimes. It saved American lives they claimed...

You are confusing the actions of an intelligence agency conducting counter terrorism to a military action.

Their missions are the same, correct? I'm just a bit to hard corps I guess? I want the US to defeat the enemy and use whatever measures needed to do so within reason. I don't see EIT as beyond reason in relation to terrorists because like the Nazis they have no moral compass and the Geneva Convention is irrelevant.

That's got to be a finalist for the most ironic post of the year. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny thing is we have the morals to not beat a terrorist but we didn't when we dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. The worst of all war crimes. It saved American lives they claimed...

You are confusing the actions of an intelligence agency conducting counter terrorism to a military action.

Their missions are the same, correct? I'm just a bit to hard corps I guess? I want the US to defeat the enemy and use whatever measures needed to do so within reason. I don't see EIT as beyond reason in relation to terrorists because like the Nazis they have no moral compass and the Geneva Convention is irrelevant.

That's got to be a finalist for the most ironic post of the year. :rolleyes:/>

Sorry for the double post. Smartphone owned by a dumb old man.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...