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.
Secondly, my brother has been out of the Marine Corps for 10+ years. So you don't need to make it all about me.
So you're arguing that the point you just made was too old to be relevant?
Quote:
Last but not least,
The U.S. Supreme Court was (and is) right on telling the difference between lawful and unlawful combatants. In every military conflicts, combatants must follow the rules of war by wearing proper uniforms of their respective nations and not committing atrocities against civilians and enemy prisoners of war. Without the rules of war, there will be more bloodshed. The rules of war are created so belligerents can follow what to do and what not to do.
No terrorist group is a party to the Geneva Conventions. They have not signed, much less ratified, those treaties.
So you're saying it's ok to torture people if they haven't signed the Geneva Convention?
Or is this another case of your own argument bearing no relationship to the point you're making? Is there a point?
Quote:
p.s. For your reading pleasure, this is something my good friend David posted a while ago. He served 3 tours overseas.
"When you look at the media, you have to look at the psychology behind the average American viewer, we have a well known affinity for violence, as a matter of fact, I believe (looking back in history) most human beings do in general. In the competitive world of national and international media one can not berate the media for giving the public exactly what they want. I mean who wouldn't want their media enterprise to become successful? This has definitely put an undue stigma behind water boarding .
When media portrays only the violence, no one sees the good people have done. There where a lot of amazing acts of courage to protect the people of Afghanistan by our armed services that were never portrayed in media, because it simply would spike ratings the same way water boarding would."
I believe in the decent treatment of humans, which is the founding basis of our rights here in the USA, in case you did not realize that the rights that we have in the USA originated long before the USA was even a thought, because they are the basis of how people should treat each other, and the role the government plays in it (thus protecting those rights, not "giving").
Just because a person is outside of the USA does not mean I think they do not deserve to have basic rights.
So if we're nice to them they'll be nice to us right? Glitter and unicorns for everyone! If you're watching how people should treat each other, does not blowing one another up while dressed as non-combatants fall anywhere on that list? Beheading? Flying planes full of civilians into buildings? Burning people alive? Or not having any of that done is not a right, right?
I'm not holding up international law as the standard. I'm saying that Gina Haspel operated a black ops site in a foreign country in order to torture prisoners. The reason for black ops sites is to avoid violating laws in various countries, however how prisoners get to the black ops sites is likely in violation of US laws, as well as numerous other countries' laws, and the torture that is conducted on them is likely in violation of US laws, as well as the laws of numerous other countries. I'm saying that Ms Haspel's actions have been documented in the Congressional Record. Her actions may have violated international law, and I suspect that there are several countries who would like to prosecute her. However she is protected by the federal government of the United States, and so will likely never have to deal with being prosecuted. That said, the FACT that she engaged in black ops sites, and in torture, speaks to her morals, ethics and character. And that should be salient to the Senate's review of her nomination for CIA director.
Why? The job in and of itself basically requires someone that has loyalty to the US and a willingness to tread on foreign laws where public interest deems it necessary.
Basically, you're looking for someone a gardener with no dirt under their fingernails.
It's a dirty job.
Who do you think was procuring all those targets for Bush and Obama's drone-strike-o-rama these past 16 years?
I fail to see a problem. Do you believe our enemies, in their own countries, are entitled to the protections granted by our Constitution to US citizens? And is spritzing a bit of Perrier in the nose torture?
If waterboarding weren't torture, you wouldn't have to try to minimize it my describing it as "spritzing a bit of Perrier in the nose". Waterboarding is never "spritzing" anything.
If waterboarding weren't torture, you wouldn't have to try to minimize it my describing it as "spritzing a bit of Perrier in the nose". Waterboarding is never "spritzing" anything.
So why do you have to blow it out of proportion to make it seem as though it is? It's not fatal or injury causing. It's just an encouragement to talk. Afterwards give the contestant a towel and send him back to his cell. In 10 minutes he's dry and in the same shape as when he left.
It is always interesting to see some of the same conservative posters that think the government that is waiting to take their guns, lying to them about climate change and is one of the least trustworthy, most corrupt organizations the world has ever seen is going to be completely honest about the justification for and the methods it uses to torture people. Weird how these paranoid, conspiracy nuts don't trust a word that comes out of a government official's mouth unless it involves giving government unfettered power to arrest, detain and torture anyone they choose without a trial or public hearing.
It is sick to see what is happening inside the US right now. People used to ask how the Germans allowed the Nazi rise to power and did nothing to stop it. Americans are now getting an up close and personal firsthand lesson in how right wing fascist governments seize power while getting large portions of the population to not only support but applaud their abuses.
There are dozens of conservatives posting in this thread that see no problem at all with allowing the US government to kidnap, torture and imprison people solely based on their claim that they deserved it. Americans can't even claim to have not known the full extent of the abuse like the Germans. We have seen the pictures from Abu Ghraib, read the testimony of the agents that admitted they kidnapped and tortured people for the US government. Unlike in Nazi Germany, US citizens know with 100% certainty that their government was kidnapping, torturing and murdering Muslims and many would like to see it return - Murica SMDH.
Why? The job in and of itself basically requires someone that has loyalty to the US and a willingness to tread on foreign laws where public interest deems it necessary.
Basically, you're looking for someone a gardener with no dirt under their fingernails.
It's a dirty job.
Who do you think was procuring all those targets for Bush and Obama's drone-strike-o-rama these past 16 years?
There's a difference between dirt under one's fingernails, and torturing human beings.
I understand that we are at war in several locations around the world, I understand that terrorists are our enemies. I don't believe the black sites were battlefields. I see no evidence that torture was productive. I do believe, deeply and emphatically, that torture damages the people who are tortured, AND the people who do the torturing. A person who tortures another human being has to be able to look at that other being and not see the human, to be able to turn off empathy, to become dead in a way. If the torture is an isolated event, the torturer may be able to recover their sense of humanity, their ability to empathize. But if the torture is systematic and repetitious, like the torture done at black ops sites, then the torturer is less likely to be able to recover. To ask our fellow Americans do this is an abomination. That Ms Haspel did this systematically and repeatedly is not in question. I don't doubt that she in intelligent and competent in every way. But I think that someone who has done the things she has done has been damaged, and I think that the Senate confirmation hearings should to some degree address that damage. Do I think she'll probably be confirmed? Yes. I think most Republicans would prefer not to consider her black ops history, and will sweep it aside, and I think Democrats will try to use it as a political weapon. I'm not comfortable with either approach, but I am not comfortable either with someone who is the head of our CIA who can justify the things she's done.
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.
