Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
BTW- as unpopular as it may be to say, several high-ranking al-Qaeda captives have in fact "spilled the beans", and given up useful information, after being 'persuaded' to do so. It's ugly, it may be inefficient, but there is some validity in "getting people to talk" who otherwise wouldn't be inclined to do so.
It's been said that some operatives have given up information as a result of interrogation, as would hopefully be the case, but there hasn't been any proof or confirmed evidence that the use of torture has yeilded information that couldn't have been extracted through other means.
what's missing is the actual context of 2002 meetings...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ontheroad
It came to my attention today that two issues might be missing from the article (that btw three of us posted), and they are (a) why was this information released now, (b) who else was at the briefing, like the Republican leaders.
But egardless of who attended, and who was briefed, their foreknowledge is quite telling.
What I see as most important here is the actual TIMING of these meetings. They held these meetings at the exact time of interrogations that everyone is up in arms about.
At the time of the meetings, everyone was in agreement about the need to obtain information from people who were outspoken about their plans against our country.
Right now, because it's an election year.. it's being used as a weapon.
You would think that 2002 would have been the time for these discussions if so many were so opposed - wouldn't you?
Funny the NY Times didn't pick up on this meeting... So you guys want everyone in government that were in agreement or even that didn't disagree held accountable, or what?
As opposed to beheading them and dragging their entrails through main street while we record it and play it for the world news media?
I look at it this way. If it comes down to us not being allowed to extract information from people who want to kill us and if we have to give them a day in court, we may as well just kill them where we find them and not take any prisoners.
As opposed to beheading them and dragging their entrails through main street while we record it and play it for the world news media?
I look at it this way. If it comes down to us not being allowed to extract information from people who want to kill us and if we have to give them a day in court, we may as well just kill them where we find them and not take any prisoners.
As opposed to beheading them and dragging their entrails through main street while we record it and play it for the world news media?
If we're going to play that game, then the people who behead and drag entrails through main street can simply say, in their own defense,
"As opposed to ripping their fingernails off and pouring salty lemon juice in the wounds, while boiling their feet in lava and forcing them to listen to ultra-high-volume Toby Keith records while recieving *****-twisters from mutant gorrillas, and THEN beheading them and dragging their entrails through main street? WE don't torture, THEY torture, people."
It's all relative; just because what you're doing "isn't as bad" doesn't mean that it's suddenly good.
As opposed to beheading them and dragging their entrails through main street while we record it and play it for the world news media?
That isn't an argument. Just because someone else does something that is morally more reprehensible does not give us the right to do something morally reprehensible just because it is less so.
If someone mugs me with a gun, does that give me the right to turn and round and mug someone with a knife? No.
That isn't an argument. Just because someone else does something that is morally more reprehensible does not give us the right to do something morally reprehensible just because it is less so.
If someone mugs me with a gun, does that give me the right to turn and round and mug someone with a knife? No.
Same argument applies.
That's not the same argument. A more direct example would be to ask if you have the right to attack the person with the gun and a friend who might be with them?
That isn't an argument. Just because someone else does something that is morally more reprehensible does not give us the right to do something morally reprehensible just because it is less so.
If someone mugs me with a gun, does that give me the right to turn and round and mug someone with a knife? No.
Same argument applies.
Certainly being mugged does NOT give you the right to run around "getting even" with the public at large. This is the argument used by many modern-day defense attorneys.
BUT--if you are mugged---and particularly if you are mugged a second or a third time--you certainly have the right to fight back. And in doing so, you'll probably do things to the mugger that you wouldn't normally do to a casual stranger. That is a far cry from your going out and "picking a fight". This fight, such as it is, came to you.
Whether this is a "good" analogy or not is arguable. When we "do something" to a enemy combatant, are we "doing it" to al-Qaeda? Of course, this can't be precisely answered. The whole idea is that what "they" have is information. It's information that could mean the difference between life and death for thousands. How do we "get" this information, assuming the prisoner chooses not to divulge it? We can "get" his weapons, and his ID card, and his cell phone....but how do we get him to tell us what he knows? And how do we do it in a timely manner, when most of it is quite time-sensitive?
On a broader scale, we (all of us) do more-or-less morally reprehensible things all the time. If a man robs a liquor store, "we" (society) will literally lock him in a cage for months or even years. We "do something mean" to him, to get back at him for "doing something mean" to our society. But that doesn't make it NICE. Taking away a man's freedom for long periods of time is really barbaric. But it's the only way we can "get even" with wrong-doers, since their own conscience doesn't seem to work.
ANY punishment risks being called "uncivilized" or barbaric. In time of war (which by its definition is the ESSENCE of 'barbaric'), even the 'normal' codes of everyday society don't always work. If you want to feel competely and unequivocally "good" about what you're doing, you shouldn't participate in a war. But even IN a war, there's "bad", and there's "unacceptably" bad. So far, I think the US has kept----MOSTLY---to the moral high ground..(If there can be such a thing in a war).
Is that official U.S. policy? Take them back to their cell and murder them? No, it isn't. Several in the military have been sentenced to prison for doing that.
Incidents like the above are the exception, not the rule. And don't apply to 99% of the U.S. troops.
Incidents lke the above also happened during WWII and other wars, but that does not become the focal point of the war.
And I'll repeat... anyone in the U.S. military who wrongfully kills someone is prosecuted, so stop making out like the U.S. military is "evil," or "kill-happy."
The US Military is bona fide evil, to the core, from top to bottom. Conscious awareness of the evil isn't a requirement. The troops are told what to do by 'humans' without souls. Exceptions like the above do not justify waterboarding or other forms of torture. Ever. Case closed.
Those arguing that our enemies are getting worse, guess what? Compare our 'enemies' to what passes for violence in movies today. Used to be a simple murder ("Dial M for Murder") was enough to enthrall audiences. Now, it takes hacking someone to pieces while they're being electrocuted to 'entertain' our sick society. Is it any wonder then that with new technology, new forms of inhumanity would develop? Do we--the United States--have to join this race to the bottom?
What we know of what has been done (in the 'rare' exceptions in the links above) is just the tip of the iceberg. For example, I lost all respect for Israel when I read about (this is very sick, so those without the stamina, please stop here) how the Israelis took a 23-year old Palestinian student and held him captive. They tied him to the back of a chair, placed a urine/feces soaked bag on his head and blasted loud noises from loudspeakers close to his head. They did this for 17 hours. Seventeen hours every day for 120 straight days. What does any human being have to have done, let alone any innocent student, to justify such horror?
If you support waterboarding and a military's right to stoop down to 'their' level, then please, exit this planet now. The future has no room for you.
The US Military is bona fide evil, to the core, from top to bottom. Conscious awareness of the evil isn't a requirement. The troops are told what to do by 'humans' without souls. Exceptions like the above do not justify waterboarding or other forms of torture. Ever. Case closed.
Those arguing that our enemies are getting worse, guess what? Compare our 'enemies' to what passes for violence in movies today. Used to be a simple murder ("Dial M for Murder") was enough to enthrall audiences. Now, it takes hacking someone to pieces while they're being electrocuted to 'entertain' our sick society. Is it any wonder then that with new technology, new forms of inhumanity would develop? Do we--the United States--have to join this race to the bottom?
What we know of what has been done (in the 'rare' exceptions in the links above) is just the tip of the iceberg. For example, I lost all respect for Israel when I read about (this is very sick, so those without the stamina, please stop here) how the Israelis took a 23-year old Palestinian student and held him captive. They tied him to the back of a chair, placed a urine/feces soaked bag on his head and blasted loud noises from loudspeakers close to his head. They did this for 17 hours. Seventeen hours every day for 120 straight days. What does any human being have to have done, let alone any innocent student, to justify such horror?
If you support waterboarding and a military's right to stoop down to 'their' level, then please, exit this planet now. The future has no room for you.
You're talking of a much broader subject here, the coarsening and degradation of our entire society, top to bottom. I agree with most of what you say, and have many posts saying just that. Some time ago, when posting about the "morals" of our soldiers, I wrote quite a 'rant' asking just where, exactly, our soldiers were expected to "get" their morals, in our present-day society.
I hear what you're saying. It's a much larger problem than just 'waterboarding', and it goes WAY beyond the military...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
what's missing is the actual context of 2002 meetings...
), and they are (a) why was this information released now, (b) who else was at the briefing, like the Republican leaders.
