OUGwave Wrote:

GGniner Wrote:yes and the public needs to be reminded of American Exceptionalism from time to time because of liberals like you and the media. They also need to be reminded of who the enemy really is, which the same group suppresses from the public.

this point above sums it up

Quote:Has Abu Ghraib received 1,000x more worldwide attention and condemnation than every gulag, torture cell, labor camp, and "re-education" camp in recent history? Yes

And it should, because we are invading countries in an effort, in your words, to bring freedom and liberty to the people of the middle east.

So, yeah, its relevant to the rest of the world that as soon as we get there we move into Saddam's old torture chambers and start dragging naked prisoners around in dog leashes and pretending to electrocute them and having them raped and killed in custody.

and if we were doing it as a matter of policy, you'd have a freaking point! Does the fact these ppl got thrown in jail just totally not register with you? that our leaders condemed it?

the other point that keeps repeatedly flying over your head

Quote:Are those other terrible places a matter of official state procedure, while Abu Ghraib was done by a local team of thugs (i.e. loose cannons)? Yes.

and just keep glossing over the acquittal, keep trashing your country for political reasons.

RebelKev Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:And it should, because we are invading countries in an effort, in your words, to bring freedom and liberty to the people of the middle east.

If you think so. I'd say it has more to do with the fact that that is more "humane" than dropping a damn Nuke on the top of the Middle East. Which would you prefer? I'm all for the Nuke myself.

Oh I know you are. I guess you'll be all for paying $100 a gallon for your oil for the rest of your life, to say nothing of your complete disregard for human life. By the way if "all's fair in war" is your justification for dropping nukes on the entire middle east, is it morally acceptable for the other side to do that to us? I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.

Further, only a nutjob would suggest our only choices in the war on terror are nuking countries that have never attacked us and invading countries that have never attacked us. Keep in mind we're trying to reduce the number of terrorists out there, not increase it.

another thing, you can't claim to not be a pacifist and at the same time claim to beleive in "universal human rights" as you keep trying to frame it. The two together do not go together.


in your world, WW2 was a horrible thing because of all the "human rights" we "violated" and would thus create a generation of Japs. and Germans that hate us and would get "revenge". Guess what, didn't happen and in fact Human rights were advanced because of these US actions!


one place US actions did not increase human rights was the Vietnam withdrawal and politicizing of the war by the 60's era liberals and micro-managing of that war.

GGniner Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:

GGniner Wrote:yes and the public needs to be reminded of American Exceptionalism from time to time because of liberals like you and the media. They also need to be reminded of who the enemy really is, which the same group suppresses from the public.

this point above sums it up

Quote:Has Abu Ghraib received 1,000x more worldwide attention and condemnation than every gulag, torture cell, labor camp, and "re-education" camp in recent history? Yes

And it should, because we are invading countries in an effort, in your words, to bring freedom and liberty to the people of the middle east.

So, yeah, its relevant to the rest of the world that as soon as we get there we move into Saddam's old torture chambers and start dragging naked prisoners around in dog leashes and pretending to electrocute them and having them raped and killed in custody.

and if we were doing it as a matter of policy, you'd have a freaking point! Does the fact these ppl got thrown in jail just totally not register with you? that our leaders condemed it?

the other point that keeps repeatedly flying over your head

Quote:Are those other terrible places a matter of official state procedure, while Abu Ghraib was done by a local team of thugs (i.e. loose cannons)? Yes.

and just keep glossing over the acquittal, keep trashing your country for political reasons.

There was a reason that interrogator was acquitted. It was the CIA's torture policy that killed that guy. Apply that to your point above.

Further, there is plenty of evidence that the Abu Ghraib guardsmen were simply following orders. Don't take it from me, listen to them, or watch Rory Kennedy's documentary on them. IED's were going off all over. Military contractors were being told to step up the interrogation to get to the bottom of what was going on. The MPs were told by the contractors to do whatever they had to to "break" these guys...

When are you going to get around to answering my question?

If you don't want to, let me put it another way. Where do our constitutional rights come from in the United States, in your opinion?

GGniner Wrote:another thing, you can't claim to not be a pacifist and at the same time claim to beleive in "universal human rights" as you keep trying to frame it. The two together do not go together.


in your world, WW2 was a horrible thing because of all the "human rights" we "violated" and would thus create a generation of Japs. and Germans that hate us and would get "revenge". Guess what, didn't happen and in fact Human rights were advanced because of these US actions!


one place US actions did not increase human rights was the Vietnam withdrawal and politicizing of the war by the 60's era liberals and micro-managing of that war.

Its called Just War Theory, read a book on it.

RebelKev Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:The American people have a right to know when crimes have been committed and human rights have been abused. Full Stop.

There is nothing more fundamental to a democracy than that.

Again, wrong. The CIA is involved in crimes on a daily basis in the name of national security. Do you honestly think trying to prevent terrorist acts can only be achieved by conversing with Saints? I'd like to know what Defense Contractor YOU work for, because it damn sure isn't in the Intel/Field Operations field.

I used to work in the security contracting field.

Now I'm with another, larger firm, but I'm not on the defense side (although there is some overlap in clients).

Its not about conversing with saints. But the American people do have a right to know whether its government is torturing people in a war we went into to "free people".

Not even the Bush administration argued otherwise on Abu Ghraib.

OUGwave Wrote:Not even the Bush administration argued otherwise on Abu Ghraib.

Are you intentionally ignoring the fact that this situation was handled?

Tell me, is what this guy did torture?

Link


...because I say LTC West should be GENERAL West now. I'd decorate that man with a Silver Star for putting his career on the line for his men's lives. I'd follow him into hell.

Quote:In his letter, Senator Warner stated that one potential attacker was apprehended and potential ambush sites were identified and avoided as a result of Mr. Hamoodi's interrogation. Colonel West notes that there were no further attacks on him or his men after the interrogation.

You need to start caring about your own f'n country and her citizens, OU.

OUGwave Wrote:There was a reason that interrogator was acquitted. It was the CIA's torture policy that killed that guy. Apply that to your point above.

you have zero proof of that yet assert it as fact, on yet another issue you must make allegations. You don't even have your facts straight, the guy that was acquitted was not CIA and was not interrogating him...... There are those that say this terrorist took head blows while being captured that was the cause of it, which resulted in the blood clot that the autoposy claimed caused his death. It didn't have anything to do with being handcuffed to a window.

Quote:Its called Just War Theory, read a book on it.

and it contridicts your "universal human rights" posture, in reality. Just war theory fails to fully deal with modern technological and political realities of today.

war by itself vioaltes "human rights" as you keep trying to define it.

GGniner Wrote:

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Is there any direct evidence of waterboarding directly leading to stopping an attack?

Brian Ross at ABC confirmed that waterboarding worked and stopped some terror attacks last year.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/m..._n17193213

Quote:Speaking of 14 "high-value" al Qaeda targets subjected to harsh interrogation practices by the CIA, Fox News's Bill O'Reilly asked Ross, "Now, the waterboarding broke all these guys?"

"Not in every case," said Ross. "Some broke before [it] even got to that point."

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed held out the longest, according to Ross. "About two and a half minutes [of waterboarding], according to our sources," he told O'Reilly.

In some cases, said Ross, "the material that has been given [by the terrorists subjected to harsh tactics] has not been accurate, has been essentially to stop the torture."

But Mohammed did provide accurate information. "In the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed," said Ross, "the information was very valuable, particularly names and addresses of people who were involved with al Qaeda in this country and in Europe. And in one particular plot, which would involve an airline attack on the tallest building in Los Angeles, known as the Liberty Tower."

so this is about the extent to which the public knows about how successful it is when used, sometimes they do get bad info as you pointed out but other times they get life-saving info. War is hell



I generally think we should give them the benefit of the doubt in these cases, i don't think waterboarding is real torture either however it's also not like its used in all situations.

Thanks, gg. I think that just goes to show that less controversial interrogation methods seemed to work just fine in most situations. They never even had to get to waterboarding with some of the prisoners.

So sure it seems like there are some successes, which I didn't doubt, but I'd really like to see the statistics of all the instances of waterboarding. If you don't look at the whole thing, the evidence is no better than a psychic who claims that they predicted all these events, while ignoring all the misses. Obviously even the most proven methods are going to get misses, I'm just curious as to what the rate is for the different methods.

I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt, but at the same time I'd like some independent US oversight involved just to keep things as open as possible. The accountability is lacking. I'm not saying we need to baby terrorists, but we need to make sure we're not doing anything that we would deem evil if our enemies did it to our guys. And if we are doing things that are seemingly evil, it damn well better be for the advancement of our cause, and not just to inflict pain on individuals.

War is hell. Yup.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:I'm not saying we need to baby terrorists, but we need to make sure we're not doing anything that we would deem evil if our enemies did it to our guys.

And that has been exactly my point in this thread. We should be better than this.

This is put well in an interview by that fired US Attorney, Iglesias (who is a Republican, they were grooming him for statewide office and to take Domenici's seat):

Quote:GQ: But you've spent time in Gitmo as a JAG. You had a personal connection to the place. The administration's tacit approval of torture had to have been of interest to you.

DI: Well, I don't like it. This country doesn't stand for that. By condoning torture or near torture, we're as bad as the people we're fighting. Sure, we're not cutting their heads off and filming it, but this country stands for decency. It makes me think of what Bobby Kennedy argued during the Cuban Missile Crisis when the military wanted to do a preemptive strike on Cuba. He goes, "You mean, you want us to do a Pearl Harbor, except we're the Japanese. We don't do that. Americans don't do that."

GGniner Wrote:

Quote:Its called Just War Theory, read a book on it.

and it contridicts your "universal human rights" posture, in reality. Just war theory fails to fully deal with modern technological and political realities of today.

war by itself vioaltes "human rights" as you keep trying to define it.

No, just war theory does not contradict human rights theory. It supports it. It stipulates that there are cases when war is justified to stop human rights abuses or genocide, but it lays out conditions which must be met if you are not attacked. War has to be the last resort. It has to actually be based on a moral intention, and not on a geopolitical one using morality as a cover. The tactics have to be discriminating. It has to have a good probability of success. It has to be proportional.

There is no reason at all to think this is outdated by anything. Morality and justice are timeless.

And it gets to your second point that war itself violates human rights as I define it. It does -- but Aquinian just war theory lays out the conditions for the exceptions you have described. In many cases, the immorality of doing nothing outweighs the immorality of war, and in those cases you act. Just War theory lays out the guidelines for that.

In no way does recognizing that human rights are absolute and universal prevent you from taking action. It just means that you recognize that in doing it, you are weighing the moral consequences of that action. And there are logical, reasoned guidelines for that which I believe in and international law is based on.

I know you don't really believe that NOT fighting a war to stop human rights abuses is always itself a violation of human rights -- The US would be the world's biggest violator were that the case. I don't believe that and I know you don't either.

The problem with "we are just in starting any war against anybody we percieve to be a threat, without question," is that the U.S. will not be the mightiest nation on earth forever. Everything we do now is setting precedent for Chinese hegemony. What kind of international norms do we want to leave behind when our primacy is over with?

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Thanks, gg. I think that just goes to show that less controversial interrogation methods seemed to work just fine in most situations. They never even had to get to waterboarding with some of the prisoners.

from what I understand, most of these guys are pretty weak when it comes down to it and all they need is a german shephard to get info out, probably why so few have been actually waterboarded. Khalid Sheik Mohammed was of the toughest, and they got through to waterboarding to finally get it out of him. It all sounds like a pretty regulated thing to me as it is.

Quote: we need to make sure we're not doing anything that we would deem evil if our enemies did it to our guys.

I think killing these guys on the battlefield is worse than waterboarding them., when framed as good/evil. but your next point sums up the difference in all this, the end game. It would be different if we were trying to bring tyrany to them, plus I think the way we go out of our way at Gitmo, from installing sinks at feet level so they can wash them, providing Korans and islamic meals(at taxpayer expense), an arrow towards Mecca on the wall so they know which way to pray. These are things they would never do for our guys.

Quote:And if we are doing things that are seemingly evil, it damn well better be for the advancement of our cause, and not just to inflict pain on individuals.

War is hell. Yup.

Which gets to this, this is exactly the difference between us and them that I think is flying over some heads. If we win, "human rights" are advanced(already has to an extent), if we lose/withdrawal the opposite happens. I also do not doubt there are situations in which a terrorist they catch just killed the soldiers buddy and he returns the favor by getting a little rough with him in the process of capturing, basic human nature which needs to have some wiggle room for as a courtesey to the troops.

I also think the word "torture" is being used in an very broad sense in the West, the arab world has no issue with seeing the difference since their govt's. as a matter of policy do much worse than waterboarding. I just don't think you can apply the word "Torture" to everything from chopping hands and toungues off, to pouring water over heads to similuate drowning but is impossible to actually drown. When you start using in such broad terms, then virtually any interrogation method can then fall under the term "torture" and thus a violation of "human rights." any form of quetioning could cause "pychological harm" and thus fall under a loose definition of "torture".

When it comes down to it, and I'm only speaking for myself, a lot of the reason I have no problem with torture is my hatred for these terrorists. I despise them. The more pain we cause them the better IMO. With a view like that I'm willing to defend most anything. I think that's the reason many don't have an issue with it. They hate these people. They hurt us, let's hurt them. It's one of the most basic emotional deminsions (sp?) of human nature. Payback, ain't it a b!tch.

However as a matter of policy our country can't act in the same way I feel. We as a country can't dive into the muck like an Iran or Syria. We say all day long "we're not like them" and while torturing terrorists doesn't make us exactly like them (we still have free speech, free religion etc.) it puts us near them, and that's closer than I want to be. I personally don't think waterboarding crosses the line, but it does walk right up to it. And I think it should be a last result.

I don't buy the "we have to set the standard" argument cause it's not like anyone is going to see us not doing something and stop. And I don't buy into a pie in the sky view of our country by any stretch, "the shining city on a hill" even though Reagan is the greatest president of the 20th century IMO and I believe our country and our way of life to be the best in the world.

So if the argument is why don't we do certain things? Why should we refrain from torture, nuking countries etc? For no other reason than it's simply the right thing to do. That right thing to do gets lost in war, history has shown that time and again. No you can't fight a war in a touchy feely way. If you want to win it, you have fight with everything you have. But even then there has to be a line you as a country cannot in good conscience cross because in the end was victory worth what you had to sacrifice? To some the answer may be an unequivocal yes. For me, despite my personal feelings, I have to say no.

GG, since you won't answer my questions about whether or not our civilian judicial system should torture people, or where our rights come from, let me ask it a third way -- and answer it.

Why do Americans have rights?

Well, in your view, as I've seen you argue in other threads, we believe in rights because we believe in God. Our view of unalienable rights comes from an acknowledgment that there is a higher power and we are created in His image. Because our founding fathers were christians, they were able to realize this.

Is that about right? I mean, summarizing your views?

If you believe that, and I don't doubt that you do -- then you must believe that our "rights" have nothing to do with whether or not we are Americans -- only the fact that we are able to enjoy them here, considering they are not recognized elsewhere. But if we truly believe that these rights are inherent in us, bestowed upon us by a creator, then morally, we must extend them to others that come under our control.

Have we lived up to that? No. But we must acknowledge that hypocrisy every time it happens.

I love this country. I really do. I cannot imagine living anywhere else. Because the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, the greatest aspirational document about the rights of man ever conceived, is our birth certificate. In my view, I'm not an American just because I was lucky enough to be born between California and Maine, I am an American because I fundamentally believe in those words. I desperately want to protect this country and every American for that very reason. But if we take the shortcuts in the process, we lose the reason why this country is uniquely worth protecting -- our belief that all human beings are born free and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.

If we truly believe that these rights are inherent in humanity, and not just those humans lucky enough to be born within certain geographic coordinates, if we believe in the words of the founders, our national creed, then we must extend the same basic rights to our captives that we would demand they extend to ours.

That is why the question "What if Iran waterboarded the prisoners?" matters.

I'll leave it at that.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:When it comes down to it, and I'm only speaking for myself, a lot of the reason I have no problem with torture is my hatred for these terrorists. I despise them. The more pain we cause them the better IMO. With a view like that I'm willing to defend most anything. I think that's the reason many don't have an issue with it. They hate these people. They hurt us, let's hurt them. It's one of the most basic emotional deminsions (sp?) of human nature. Payback, ain't it a b!tch.

I happened across this blogsite this morning. Can't say I agree w/ every post I read, but she did have some interesting commentary.

This one seemed relevent. Again, not saying I have all the answers

http://followhim.typepad.com/follow/curr...index.html

Quote:I heard Cornell West, a religious studies professor at Princeton, on the radio recently while driving in Chicago.

He asked some crucial questions that had been rumbling around in my head as well.

When Emmitt Till was killed by terrorists, West said, his mother said at his funeral "I ain't got time to hate."

When Martin Luther King buried the four girls killed in the church bombing in Birmingham, he again warned weary and angry African-Americans that they could not be dragged into hate. They had to find the strength to love those who did this horrible thing.

That was the Gospel being preached in action. And it was lived out. It's impact was felt around the world.

So, West asks, "Where is that public discourse now, following September 11? Why are there no voices like that coming from American leaders today?"

He suggests that those who have always had power are unable to tap into the power of the Gospel that Jesus taught.

Is he right?

Can we talk of the Gospel without being able to forgive our enemies?

RebelKev Wrote:You need to start caring about your own f'n country and her citizens, OU.

This is a very, very low comment.

I don't know why but I expected more of you.

DrTorch Wrote:

Quote:I heard Cornell West, a religious studies professor at Princeton, on the radio recently while driving in Chicago.

He asked some crucial questions that had been rumbling around in my head as well.

When Emmitt Till was killed by terrorists, West said, his mother said at his funeral "I ain't got time to hate."

When Martin Luther King buried the four girls killed in the church bombing in Birmingham, he again warned weary and angry African-Americans that they could not be dragged into hate. They had to find the strength to love those who did this horrible thing.

That was the Gospel being preached in action. And it was lived out. It's impact was felt around the world.

So, West asks, "Where is that public discourse now, following September 11? Why are there no voices like that coming from American leaders today?"

He suggests that those who have always had power are unable to tap into the power of the Gospel that Jesus taught.

Is he right?

Can we talk of the Gospel without being able to forgive our enemies?

Excellent commentary and one I agree whole heartedly with.

I haven't always felt as I do now. For a long time I felt our policy as a nation is give as good as we get. It's only recently that I've softened my view.

I can honestly say I'm not at a point where I can forgive 9/11 or those that did it. But the ability to do so is something I am required to pursue given my beliefs. But it ain't easy. ;-)

GGniner Wrote:other Abu Ghraib photos..

Hey!!, you cant put these on here. only flag burning pictures are allowed

GGniner Wrote:they've more in likely had training for waterboarding and other techniques, as many in our military have. Along with sleep deprevation among other things. You can disagree all you want with how far we go with terrorist, but I think an easy standard to apply is that if we do it to our own troops in training, we ought to be able to do it to the leaders of al Qaeda.


What we do not do to our troops in training are things like chopping their hands off for using US currency, cutting their tongues out for speaking out, breaking all the bones in their feet then forcing them to run a mile....just a few things that are clearly torture, used by Saddam and many other despots. If you can not distinguish between acts like that and waterboarding then i pity you.


and I have news for you, we were using waterboarding as an interrogation technique before W came to power.

I'm not so sure about that. In the US, only spec ops/forces and aircrew go to SERE school to learn to resist this type of torture. I remember my father talking about it and the rule was 72 hours or something. If you can hold out for 3 days any information you have is no longer useful. In that 3 days they would probably beat the sh!t out of you but you didn't get anyone else killed in the process. I don't know how the British military trains their own they may have had the training.

RebelKev Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:

GGniner Wrote:other Abu Ghraib photos..

Should we be congratulated for doing the things we're expected to do?

Are the expectations higher for the US? Yes.

Should they be? You're damn straight.

Should the GDamn media ONLY post graphic photos? Or should they have a DUTY to portray ALL news? Answer THAT for me. If not, I see it no other way than the fact that they are aiding our enemy.

Biggest lesson learned from Abu Ghraib is not to bring the camera in when torturing prisoners. It ain't pretty, just like what they do to our guys ain't pretty. I have no problem with coercive questioning and a slight beating isn't torture, neither is sleep deprivation or making them listen to loud noises. If one GI gets saved from the information it's worth it in my book.