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.
Love what the article says about it being an election year...
I hope you don't mind that I posted the link into the other "Waterboarding" discussion. Wish I'd known it earlier during my discussion about the CIA tapes!
Fair enough. But neither should you compare our actions to the regimes of places like modern-day Scandinavia, or Nepal, or Iceland, which never get involved in wars, and use THEM as your standard, either, and say "eh, we're good--but we're STILL not as good as THEY are"....
Remember the old "Andy Griffith Show", in which Andy Griffith played fictional Sherriff Andy Taylor of Mayberry?. Taylor was a "nice" sherriff. He refused to carry a gun, and kept order by appealing to folks' "good side". Sherriff Taylor's tactics worked well in Mayberry. In Los Angeles or New York, he'd have been "eaten alive". The US is involved in many situations that don't resemble "Mayberry". Sometimes appealing to folks' "good side" just doesn't work.
Yeah, but get on the good side of enough people and you can get a lot more done. Ghandi used it and it helped free India. The problem is it takes too long for most people, so much easier to make it an arms race for who can get strongest.
If you have an idiot for Chief of Police, you can STILL discuss the tactics used by the department---and you can't blame EVERYTHING on the idiot. Even a "good" chief may have to use "new" methods in fighting "new" crime. A few years ago, no one knew about DNA. Does that mean its "unacceptably intrusive", because it wasn't used back in the 1960's? Or do we use it NOW, because we CAN, and it WORKS ?---- and settle the morality of it separately?
Just asking--
Well, first off, my objection with this has little to do who instituted it and everything to do with the abhorrent idea of the US engaging in the systematic use of torture itself. But beyond that, your analogy doesn't make any sense. Torture isn't some "new" method we're just finding out about. We know what it is, and why it has been used by the most oppressive regimes in history. It's great at extracting false testimony. I don't see how you can pretend we KNOW it WORKS, and how you can just suspend the morality of barbarism. They are intricately linked, which is why our great Presidents refused to engage in this behavior. But if you believe the US should abandon the lofty principles on which it was founded, in favor of those employed by dictators and rogue states, you and I won't find any common ground on this subject.
The troops are not told what is going to be done to them. It is a realistic, multi day excercise - no food, water etc - locked up in small cages - you name it. One defecates and urinates on themselves and then are not allowed to clean up - just like reality -
But they know they aren't going to die or be seriously hurt.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ontheroad
Clear position, and one I totally agree with. And today I discovered that some more of our elected officials in DC have lost their perspective and totally misplaced their moral compass:
Well, first off, my objection with this has little to do who instituted it and everything to do with the abhorrent idea of the US engaging in the systematic use of torture itself. But beyond that, your analogy doesn't make any sense. Torture isn't some "new" method we're just finding out about. We know what it is, and why it has been used by the most oppressive regimes in history. It's great at extracting false testimony. I don't see how you can pretend we KNOW it WORKS, and how you can just suspend the morality of barbarism. They are intricately linked, which is why our great Presidents refused to engage in this behavior. But if you believe the US should abandon the lofty principles on which it was founded, in favor of those employed by dictators and rogue states, you and I won't find any common ground on this subject.
Once again, your ideas are noble. I can't say you're wrong. I'm simply once again suggesting that the war on terror isn't really a conventional war at all. And for this reason, its abhorrent qualities make it so repulsive to our "western" sensibilities, that many of us, I think, don't see this as the way we "want" our soldiers being used.
The "enemies" aren't soldiers, in the sense that ours are. They represent no conventional government, and their objectives really aren't negotiable. They don't want the conventional things that wars are usually fought over (territory, shipping access, or material goods). They are directed by "God", and their enemies are God's enemies--and as such, those enemies (us, and the rest of the 'infidels') must be destroyed. There is little room in this type of conflict for any traditional type of negotiations or compromise.
In view of the above, we really don't have anything to "throw at them" that would compare with their level of commitment and fanaticism. About the best that we can come up with are our military. But I'm not sure this is really a "military" issue. And I'm not sure exactly where the "morality" fits in, or how far we'll get taking the "high road".
You're right, in that we are in danger of "stooping to their level". On the other hand, these apparently are not people who can be "beaten". They don't seem interested in any sort of surrender, or have any desire to co-exist with us AFTER hostilities cease. I'm not sure we can apply ALL of the traditional rules of decency in fighting such an enemy. We COULD always just give up, of course---come home---and hope they don't follow us, and all agree among ourselves to live from now on in a sort of hyper-protective police state. But if that idea turned out to be wrong, I'm not sure we could ever "go back".
Meanwhile, I don't have any more insightful suggestions. I can only reiterate that there are wide degrees of the concept of "torture", and that NOBODY is going to sit by and simply volunteer information to us because they have a guilty conscience. I don't like the idea of "coercing" anybody at ALL---but I see it as a neccessary evil...the same as handcuffing people, or locking them up. And it's a long way from "waterboarding" to serious, Saddam-style torture.
Sorry I just can't get behind the "Ghandi" example. Ghandi basically let himself be beaten and abused, and overcame the big British "bullies" by sheer force of public opinion. Eventually the British authorities felt so "silly" beating up on a defenseless man, and the British public got so disgusted, that the British authorities "backed off"--and eventually out of India altogether-- largely out of the simple moral pressure of "good" people.
It seems to me that if we today were to use Ghandi's approach, we'd allow al-Qaeda to blow up an America city--then another one or two--until al-Qaeda began to feel so "gulty" that they became embarrassed, backed off, and went home. Somehow, though, I'm not confident that al-Qaeda would respond to 'public disapproval' in quite the way the British did in India. Sorry, but I don't think the 'Ghandi' approach would work for us...
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.
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.
Wish I'd known it earlier during my discussion about the CIA tapes!
), and they are (a) why was this information released now, (b) who else was at the briefing, like the Republican leaders.
