Report: CIA threatened detainee families

WASHINGTON - Interrogators threatened to kill the children of a Sept. 11 suspect, according to a CIA report released Monday by the Justice Department.

The report, declassified as part of a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, examined CIA treatment of terror detainees following the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

According to the report, one interrogator said a colleague had told Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that if any other attacks happened in the United States, "We're going to kill your children."

Another interrogator allegedly tried to convince a different terror suspect detainee that his mother would be sexually assaulted in front of him — though the interrogator in question denied making such a threat.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32538742/ns/politics-more_politics/

They had said this new report wasn't going to be good, but I didn't think it would contain stuff like this.

-spence

and the BIG difference between the horribly mean talking interrogator and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is that Mohammed WOULD ACTUALLY happily kill your children ...

I think we need to release some details of Al Qaeda interrogations...for a little of that "context" you're always yapping about :uhuh:

Hmm, timing an investigation at the peak of the HC dissent by the astro turfs,
could this be the old "broken wing" trick?

We all know that the threats were frivolous. Spence, see if you could find out how many American lives were or maybe have been saved with the info from that type of interrogation saved.

and the BIG difference between the horribly mean talking interrogator and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is that Mohammed WOULD ACTUALLY happily kill your children ...

I think we need to release some details of Al Qaeda interrogations...for a little of that "context" you're always yapping about :uhuh:

Right, because if they can do it, why shouldn't we?

With your logic, we should be able to abduct family members of possible terrorists and then send them videos of us beheading their loved ones.

Personally, I see no problems with the above CIA interrogation techniques.

Right, because if they can do it, why shouldn't we? I never said that, the threat from my standpoint and I assume yours is not likely to be carried out, simply meant to scare or intimidate...however, the threat from KSM's standpoint may sound entirely creadabile because he himself is capable of such a thing and in the culture that he is immersed in this is certainly a reality...

With your logic, we should be able to abduct family members of possible terrorists and then send them videos of us beheading their loved ones. you are really reaching....your imagination is scaring me, I cited context because again, verbal threats are hardly as severe as what KSM's folks are capable of...never suggested that we resort lowering to their level

Personally, I see no problems with the above CIA interrogation techniques. but Spence and MSNBC are all "WEE, WEED UP" over words, just words......pretty sad


and yes, this was released to placate and coalesce the base that is wandering away from "God's Partner"....Panetta was hardly amused....

but Spence and MSNBC are all "WEE, WEED UP" over words, just words......pretty sad
Yea, cause MSNBC made it all up...

http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/iraq/interrogation-techniques.htm

and yes, this was released to placate and coalesce the base that is wandering away fron God's Partner....

Perhaps the scariest thing you've ever posted. Thanks for showing your true colors...

-spence

Personally, I see no problems with the above CIA interrogation techniques.

If JohnnyD is OK with the techniques, I would guess that the "mainstream" would also have no objections. I would suspect that most Americans would expect this sort of thing, not be shocked or horrified by it. I, also, agree with JohnnyD.

Perhaps the scariest thing you've ever posted. Thanks for showing your true colors...

-spence

what the hell are you talking about Hot Bottom?
I never said it was "made up", just that you are all "wee weed up"
JD IS mainstream:uhuh:

and the BIG
I think we need to release some details of Al Qaeda interrogations...for a little of that "context" you're always yapping about :uhuh:

You mean like the humane way they interogated Nick Berg?


If you search for it its there, but DO NOT WATCH THE VIDEO!!! Once you do, you cant un-watch it... It will be stuck in your brain,,, hearing him scream and plead for his life.... There is a Huge difference between us and them.......

There is a Huge difference between us and them.......
Are you a complete idiot, or is tonight just a bad night?

-spence

Are you a complete idiot, or is tonight just a bad night?

-spence

Maybe in your eyes.....

What ever we did or do to those involved is perfectly fine with me, if it saved or saves live in the US....

You wanna jump on the "screw America band wagon" every chance you get... They did what they did, and we did what we had to.. ...

So is today, Spence's day to be a total "ass"? or are you having a bad day?

and the BIG difference between the horribly mean talking interrogator and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is that Mohammed WOULD ACTUALLY happily kill your children ...

I think we need to release some details of Al Qaeda interrogations...for a little of that "context" you're always yapping about :uhuh:

And operators will kill women and children.
A job is a job.

You wanna jump on the "screw America band wagon" every chance you get...
That's just the lamest sort of BS there is. A weak cop out to avoid a little thought.

Force you to admit your %$%$%$%$ might stink the least bit and you just wrap the flag tighter around your own neck.

These images were created and published for YOUR CONSUMPTION in the hope that you might compromise what you claim to value most.

And you still don't see it.

-spence

These images were created and published for YOUR CONSUMPTION in the hope that you might compromise what you claim to value most.-spence

You have stated something to the effect that you are not interested in what was working 70 years ago but what works for today. I don't know what TODAYS American values most, or claims to value most, but the founding of this country was based on the proposition that what was most valuable was life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Life was risked and lost for that proposition, and an attitude of "don't tread on me" was born of it. I don't know what the murderers of Nick Berg thought Americans value most, but the guy who did the cutting found that he stepped on the wrong folks. I don't know if he was some keen philosopher that had insight into the American psyche. Maybe, he thought all Americans are like you, and he published his horror in hopes that SUCH Americans would compromise whatever you all claim to value most. Obviously, since you don't approve of the CIA's methods, he didn't succeed. Most assuredly, he didn't scare us away because he didn't understand what the OTHER Americans value most.

You have stated something to the effect that you are not interested in what was working 70 years ago but what works for today.

Over my head; what do you mean "not interested in what was working 70 years ago?".

That's just the lamest sort of BS there is. A weak cop out to avoid a little thought.

Force you to admit your %$%$%$%$ might stink the least bit and you just wrap the flag tighter around your own neck.

These images were created and published for YOUR CONSUMPTION in the hope that you might compromise what you claim to value most.

And you still don't see it.

-spence

you are making absolutely no sense, but this is fun...Spence Alynski, why do you hate America so much, you clearly sympathize with the terrorists, thanks for showing YOUR true colors :uhuh: ????

You have stated something to the effect that you are not interested in what was working 70 years ago but what works for today. I don't know what TODAYS American values most, or claims to value most, but the founding of this country was based on the proposition that what was most valuable was life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Life was risked and lost for that proposition, and an attitude of "don't tread on me" was born of it. I don't know what the murderers of Nick Berg thought Americans value most, but the guy who did the cutting found that he stepped on the wrong folks. I don't know if he was some keen philosopher that had insight into the American psyche. Maybe, he thought all Americans are like you, and he published his horror in hopes that SUCH Americans would compromise whatever you all claim to value most. Obviously, since you don't approve of the CIA's methods, he didn't succeed. Most assuredly, he didn't scare us away because he didn't understand what the OTHER Americans value most.
What I find so interesting is that those who claim to hold their principals highest (i.e. the rule of law) also seem to be the first to cast them aside when it suits their interests.

We can't defend our freedoms if we have not foundation from which to fight. Always believing that the ends justify the means makes us just like them...

Re posting graphic images, in the hopes of influencing action without thought - is doing just that.

-spence

What I find so interesting is that those who claim to hold their principals highest (i.e. the rule of law) also seem to be the first to cast them aside when it suits their interests.

We can't defend our freedoms if we have not foundation from which to fight. Always believing that the ends justify the means makes us just like them...

Re posting graphic images, in the hopes of influencing action without thought - is doing just that.

-spence

we can't defend our freedom if whiners like you get weak-kneed and wee weed because an interrogator yelled at a mass murdering terrorist...:rotf2:

is it against the law to yell at or threaten mass murdering terrorists?

if you can's see the difference and want to continue to draw some moral equivalence to the way that we conduct ourselves and the way that the radical islamists conduct themselves you are simply delusional...what's the matter with you? :wall:

In this situation you do what you have to do. We are under attack. Every war the enemy is always demonized and made to be inhuman. This is nothing compared to the sick %$%$%$%$ that went on in WW2 or Viet Nam. It ALWAYS happens. ALWAYS. Thats why we should be dam sure before we delcare war on any other country. I say forgive and forget can't do anything about it now. When you release the dogs of war they all get released, even the ones in the special cages.

I hope this is in jest and you feel this is as foolish as I do... Verbal threats about violence to the family of the mastermind of 9/11... Firing a gun in the cell next to the bomber of the USS Cole and saying we will shoot you next... staging fake beatings...

You really have problems with this type of interrogation? Seriously?

Liberals bitched and moaned about things allegedly that went down Abu Grahib and then later whined about the use of water boarding, the "Physical" tools of interrogation.

Now you have problems with the "verbal" tools? Things like lies...completely contrived and absurd threats....Saying they are going to "get" a family member?

What do you think happens in an interrogation, how do you propose we cull life saving information form mass murderers like Sheik Mohammmed?

Egyptian Cotton sheets and truffles just aren't going to cut it comrad.

you are making absolutely no sense, but this is fun...Spence Alynski, why do you hate America so much, you clearly sympathize with the terrorists, thanks for showing YOUR true colors :uhuh: ????

and why do you hate America so much that you'll throw 230 years of having the moral high ground away to be like a bunch of POS terrorists.

PaulS, you just don't get it,
Because stooping down a level or two is OK, we're America...

Spence, you do understand why this story is being put out there for public consumption right now, don't you? You fell for it hook line, and sinker.

Yup, this story will beat to death to try and keep citizens distracted from HC.

and why do you hate America so much that you'll throw 230 years of having the moral high ground away to be like a bunch of POS terrorists.

?????:confused: I believe the bar has been moved to accomodate a political attack for advantage from the radical left on this issue...read a little history beginning with George Washington, I think you'll find "threatening terrorists" to be fairly a fairly mundane incident in our past 230 years...which makes the reaction by some completely hilarious and disturbing at the same time...nothing more that a carrot for the whackos...

Liberals, in general, will take the high ground when it suits their
political agenda, but when it comes to late term abortion it's OK to take a life.

Will it be allowed to sneak up behind a captured terrorist and yell Boo?

who cares....

they'll stop at nothing....

the suicidal explosives they are strapping onto
kidnapped children to blow up our citizens in the military
should allow us to use any means possible to
extract info out of them...

This is being pushed by Jan Schanowky from Illinois. Enough said. If you can't admit that this is politcally motivated then you are an idiot ( no offense, it just seems to be a name people like to use here). And I'm sure we have not had the moral high ground for 230 yrs. We have aways had people that will do whatever it takes to save others.
It's as simple as " if your kid was burried alive" Those that say they would do nothing... well I'm glad Your not my parent.

s

.. well I'm glad Your not my parent.


Is it claustrophobic underground?
What did your parents have to do? :D
I would have left you there :D


OF COURSE this was politically motivated, EVERYTHING that is not breaking news (i.e. released) FROM BOTH sides is timed for maximum efficiency. it is unfortunate that these games get played, but it doesn't change the story, it only changes the context of WHEN it was released.

The only thing that bothers me about this story is that it did not remain a secret. The SOB that made it public should be in jail.

Is it claustrophobic underground?
What did your parents have to do? :D
I would have left you there :D


OF COURSE this was politically motivated, EVERYTHING that is not breaking news (i.e. released) FROM BOTH sides is timed for maximum efficiency. it is unfortunate that these games get played, but it doesn't change the story, it only changes the context of WHEN it was released.

Brian, I'm sure your smart enough to understand what I meant. (FYI, I never said you were an idiot, that's your fabrication.) You would do whatever it takes to save your child. Am I wrong? It's a simple yes or no answer. Would you threaten someone? Would you put a gun to their head? YES or NO

A political witch hunt that will hurt our national security is not my idea of the "moral highground". Is it yours?

None of us are idiots. Just playing with your words a bit.. I think you referred to liberals as idiots many moons ago... thats the quote, not me personally... :D

of course it is yes, but they still have not shown that ANY of this works to get credible information, so why do we continue to do it and hurt our credibility with the rest of the non-terrorist world...

That being said, do I believe there are always people willing to do anything? yes. Is that a bad thing, no, BUT it is a very fine line to walk.

My worry is where does it lead, and whats next? This stuff being done to the wrong person? Americans? Not a big deal, if it saves 100 lives, ends justify the means etc.. is not a the only answer to me...

The only thing that bothers me about this story is that it did not remain a secret. The SOB that made it public should be in jail.

jail's to good for him.............

he should be air dropped with a parachute in the middle of the Serengeti....

Over my head; what do you mean "not interested in what was working 70 years ago?".

Sorry, I should have made it clear that in this sentence I was referring to one of Spence's responses in another thread.

I agree with you Brian, Where do you draw the line? I'm going to let people more knowledgable then me (insert joke here) make that decision. My problem is rehashing this won't do any of us any good, will hurt moral at the CIA, cost millions and millions, act as a distraction, and divide an already divided country. What we know now is that our new methods are to treat terrorist with the respect and dignity they deserve. I feel so much safer now.

[QUOTE=spence;707437]What I find so interesting is that those who claim to hold their principals highest (i.e. the rule of law) also seem to be the first to cast them aside when it suits their interests.

I find interesting the construction "those who . . . also". I have no idea nor evidence that the CIA interrogators hold the rule of law as their highest principle. On the contrary, they may hold the security of the citizens of this country as a higher principle. Nor do I find evidence that, if they have cast any principles aside, that they are the first to do it. Nor do I find any evidence that the vast majority of U.S. citizens, nor any large number of citizens of this planet, hold the rule of law as their highest principle.

We can't defend our freedoms if we have not foundation from which to fight. Always believing that the ends justify the means makes us just like them...-spence[QUOTE]

We do not "always" believe that the ends justify the means, but at some critical times, they very well may. If we do not believe our way of life, our citizenry, are no more valuable to us than those who would destroy us, if we are not willing to defend our existence with the utmost ferocity, our world may well not end with a bang, but a whimper.

IDIOT :smash:

A person having a mentel age of less then 3 years old.

A stupid or foolish person.

Someone fitting the discription above would be considered an IDIOT. :rotf2:

Since the word is used quite frequently in this forum I thought it a good idea to put the definition. :spam:

This argument isn't about the timing of the release.

It's about the obvious duplicity that undermines our real objectives.

And for being weak, it takes a far stronger person to live by their own word.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This argument isn't about the timing of the release.

It's about the obvious duplicity that undermines our real objectives.

And for being weak, it takes a far stronger person to live by their own word.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hmmm... I guess it would take a lot of strength to stick to your beliefs, and not do everything in your power to stop/prevent a terrorist act. I know I don't have, or want that kind of strength. I was raised that when you see someone in need you help them, when you see someone being hurt, you stop those hurting them.. Even if it means you may just add your name to the list of those being hurt, you have to do all you can to stop or prevent it.

Maybe I'm the one who's morally wrong, but even if some scumbag had a relative of yours (child, mother, sister...) and we had his partner in crime... I would get the information out of scumbag #2, no matter what, to save your relative.

So put that on a bigger scale,, just think what I would do to get info from a terrorist to save thousands of peoples relatives...

And did I read that right earlier, that you think those photos are faked, or fabricated? I have seen 5 or 6 similar videos of these "be headings" and they are not faked or fabricated.

You hit the nail on the head Cool Beans.

and why do you hate America so much that you'll throw 230 years of having the moral high ground away to be like a bunch of POS terrorists.

I thought we had already lost the moral high ground when Bush invaded Iraq. Actually, the left has been saying for at least 40 years that we are morally inferior because of how we treat the poor, minorities, homosexuals, illegals (oops--undocumented aliens), the incarcerated, the uninsured, the hypocrisy of the religious right and Fox news, and right-wing radio, and our damned sense of exceptionalism. It's news to me that because of these CIA interrogations we are NOW in danger of losing the moral high ground.

This argument isn't about the timing of the release.

To which argument are you referring. There is certainly an argument about the timing of a release which many feel shouldn't be released.

It's about the obvious duplicity that undermines our real objectives.

And which code need I use to translate that sentence?


And for being weak, it takes a far stronger person to live by their own word.

I'm not sure to which "word" you refer. If you mean "the rule of law", I believe that any law, domestic or international, that equates to suicide is, to quote #^&#^&#^&#^&ens' Mr. Bumble, that "law is a ass, a idiot."

Furthermore, the rule of law applies to an agreed upon social contract. Those that fall outside the purview of that contract have no claim to any of its rules. And if some Pols insert such a rule that endangers the society that created the contract, then that rule IS A ASS, A IDIOT and needs to be repealed.

Furthermore, in reference to your "those who claim to hold their principals highest (i.e. the rule of law)"-- the prime principle is to exist, without which there can be no other principles. The next principle is to propagate. From these principles it may follow that, to ensure them and to gain the best existence, there should be a rule of law. If a rule of law violates the prime principles, it is a contradiction--A ASS, A IDIOT. If the "terrorists" wish to enter a contract with us to harmoniously exist and propagate, and if they wish to abide by that contract, the rules of law can be drawn. If they wish to deny our existence, any rules to accomodate them are ASSES AND IDIOTS. And interrogation techniques applied to those outside the purview of our social contract should adhere to the highest or PRIME principle, not to our rules of law.

America has never had the moral highground. Are you kidding me, ask the Indians or the Mexicans or the Spainish or the Phillipine. We have slaughtered more than our fair share of innocents throughout history. Locally think about the 4000 woman and children of the Narragansett Indian tribe that the PILGRIMS wipped out during the King Phillip War in the Great Swamp massacare. They tribe was even in the fight. The US has lots of blood on its hands. What I am saying is the war is horrible, just horrible. The things men do. Hopeless.

I have no problems with good people doing bad things to bad people, as long as its hidden from the public eye and it gets valuable intel for our national security. Its a joke that the govt announces all we do is fake beatings, and empty threats, on dirtbags that would do HORRIBLE things to our friends and family if given the chance. This country is getting more and more limp wristed, what about just drawing a picture of Allah humping a camel, is that torture? I dont think so, but if you did, surer that shi'ite, there would be muslims stampeding old people to get in front of cameras, in some village that just got running water, holding burning american flags. Thats the mentality we have to deal with, and Obama says ask them questions in a soothing manner. I call BS.

Hmmm... I guess it would take a lot of strength to stick to your beliefs, and not do everything in your power to stop/prevent a terrorist act.

Maybe I'm the one who's morally wrong, but even if some scumbag had a relative of yours (child, mother, sister...) and we had his partner in crime... I would get the information out of scumbag #2, no matter what, to save your relative.

So put that on a bigger scale,, just think what I would do to get info from a terrorist to save thousands of peoples relatives...

You're making it sound like we have no options at our disposal to interrogate terrorists, when in fact quite the opposite is true. The information released to date appears to indicate that the vast majority of high-value intel has been gained through perfectly legal methods.

Your willingness to abandon your beliefs on the slim chance that it might help seems odd.

Why have them in the first place?

And did I read that right earlier, that you think those photos are faked, or fabricated?
No.

-spence

America has never had the moral highground. Are you kidding me, ask the Indians or the Mexicans or the Spainish or the Phillipine. We have slaughtered more than our fair share of innocents throughout history. Locally think about the 4000 woman and children of the Narragansett Indian tribe that the PILGRIMS wipped out during the King Phillip War in the Great Swamp massacare. They tribe was even in the fight. The US has lots of blood on its hands. What I am saying is the war is horrible, just horrible. The things men do. Hopeless.
This is nonsense. People around the world have long looked to the unique thing that is the USA as a source of inspiration.

-spence

It's about the obvious duplicity that undermines our real objectives.

And which code need I use to translate that sentence?
No code, it should be quite obvious.

Bush set forth a long-term security strategy based on the assumptions that democratic states are generally more stable, all people want to be free, and that the world "needs" our leadership to help them get there.

I think we'd all agree that the rule of law is a cornerstone element to a stable, democratic society.

By compromising our own values, or violating our own laws or International treaties, we tarnish the very basis of our own argument.

This is glaringly obvious to those who we wish to influence, and therefore quite counter productive.

-spence

I have no problems with good people doing bad things to bad people, as long as its hidden from the public eye and it gets valuable intel for our national security. Its a joke that the govt announces all we do is fake beatings, and empty threats, on dirtbags that would do HORRIBLE things to our friends and family if given the chance. This country is getting more and more limp wristed, what about just drawing a picture of Allah humping a camel, is that torture? I dont think so, but if you did, surer that shi'ite, there would be muslims stampeding old people to get in front of cameras, in some village that just got running water, holding burning american flags. Thats the mentality we have to deal with, and Obama says ask them questions in a soothing manner. I call BS.
This seems to be the prevailing attitude among many of your peers.

My summary...

Two wrongs do indeed make a right.

The ends always justify the means.

Unless we're willing to do anything, then we're doing nothing.

And...if a tree falls in the woods, and nobody is there to hear it, it definitely does not make any noise :hihi:

Am I missing anything?

-spence

Am I missing anything?

-spence

common sense and stones .....:rotf2:

This political ploy, which I'm sure was Rahm Emanuel's idea, is doing
nothing but dividing our people even more.

Pinetta is totally against it because he knows it will tie the hands and cause the CIA to be looking over their shoulder in gathering Intel.
Meantime the terrorists are laughing all the way to their next attack
on innocents.

We are not talking about uniformed soldiers fighting on a battle field,
but people wanting to kill anybody they consider an infidel anyway they can.

Try another way, Emanuel, to distract us from
the insane spending, stimulus, cap and trade and HC.
In most cases the American people are on to you, imo.

This is nonsense. People around the world have long looked to the unique thing that is the USA as a source of inspiration.

-spence

We have long inspired them because we were successful, rich, powerful, and free, not because we slavishly followed a suicidal rule to accomodate murderous thugs who terrorize the world and wish to destroy us. Had we done the latter we would not have existed long enough to achieve the former, and, rather than being an inspiration, we would have been a foolish laughing stock.

We have long inspired them because we were successful, rich, powerful, and free, not because we slavishly followed a suicidal rule to accomodate murderous thugs who terrorize the world and wish to destroy us. Had we done the latter we would not have existed long enough to achieve the former, and, rather than being an inspiration, we would have been a foolish laughing stock.
Did you ever think the a key reason we are "successful, rich, powerful and free" is precisely because we've upheld a higher standard?

Granted the US has never been perfect, but I think we'd all agree that even with our failures included we hold the bar much higher than any other nation. Out legal system isn't perfect, but it's hands down the best in the world.

Some seem to think that any criticism of the US is anti, where as at times, when appropriate it's necessary course correction.

Two good aphorisms from F.M. Alexander...

"Everyone wants to be right, but no one stops to consider if their idea of right is right."

"If people will go on believing that they 'know', it is impossible to eradicate anything; it makes it impossible to teach them."

-spence

No code, it should be quite obvious.

Bush set forth a long-term security strategy based on the assumptions that democratic states are generally more stable, all people want to be free, and that the world "needs" our leadership to help them get there.

You had not mentioned Bush's policy. No way I can get that from "It's about the obvious duplicity that undermines our real objectives."


I think we'd all agree that the rule of law is a cornerstone element to a stable, democratic society.

By compromising our own values, or violating our own laws or International treaties, we tarnish the very basis of our own argument.

The rule of law IN GENERAL is "a cornerstone element" of our society. But not all SPECIFIC laws are condusive to that stability. Some laws are useless or outdated remnants. Some are rules that benefit special interests at the expense of others. Some are just stupid. And some can be destructive. We certainly have no international treaty with stateless terrorists. And the "rule of law", as I have said previosly in this thread, is not our highest principle. Our highest principle is to exist in the manner in which we were created--to preserve our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. And we neither compromise that, nor tarnish what we did in Irag by CIA type interrogations of those who wish to destroy the democracy we helped to establish in that country.

This is glaringly obvious to those who we wish to influence, and therefore quite counter productive.

-spence

What is glalringly obvious to others, is that we stubbornly remain the powerful, rich, free society, and they remain jealous. Although, those now "running" our country may wish to change that.

Did you ever think the a key reason we are "successful, rich, powerful and free" is precisely because we've upheld a higher standard?-spence

The simple answer would be NO.

But, to ramble a bit, I would say that, in my hyper-idealistic youthful days, I may have thought something like that. But having experienced actual life since then, I am now of the opinion that higher ethical standards, admirable, useful, and wonderful as they are, are a luxury afforded us by our success, not a reason for that success. The raucus, hurly-burley of the making of this country, following the bloody battle to create and the wars to sustain and expand it were filled with other than highest ethical standards.

This also seems to apply to states throughout history. Other than religious, high ethical standards were created AFTER societies struggled to exist and were fully successful in doing so. The most powerful states, AFTER successfully becoming so, created great "rules of law," great art, impressive ethics, great philosophers, and, as they abandoned their prime principle to exist AGAINST ALL THAT WOULD DESTROY THEM, and became more covetous of the beauties they created than of the brutal power that enabled all they came to prefer, they were NEEDLESSLY defeated by lesser foes who possessed a greater conviction to win. Our special (exceptional, if you will) driving force and source of power, in my opinion, is our freedom. It is what we should covet with utmost ferocity against those who would take it from us.

You had not mentioned Bush's policy. No way I can get that from "It's about the obvious duplicity that undermines our real objectives."
My wife believes I have an autistic trait to assume others know what I'm thinking. Personally I do think that in the context of the discussion this was obvious. The incidents in question happened in 2004.

The rule of law IN GENERAL is "a cornerstone element" of our society. But not all SPECIFIC laws are condusive to that stability. Some laws are useless or outdated remnants. Some are rules that benefit special interests at the expense of others. Some are just stupid. And some can be destructive.

There's a big difference between civil and criminal law, and I'd wager that that the majority of criminal law is as applicable today as it was when it was founded.

The laws we're generally talking about have to do with issues like human rights and torture. These I think have been pretty consistent this century...

We certainly have no international treaty with stateless terrorists.
We establish laws that say torture is wrong, that establish rules of conduct based on ethics.

The limits are based on our morals, not theirs, as we are in control.

And the "rule of law", as I have said previosly in this thread, is not our highest principle. Our highest principle is to exist in the manner in which we were created--to preserve our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. And we neither compromise that, nor tarnish what we did in Irag by CIA type interrogations of those who wish to destroy the democracy we helped to establish in that country.

This conflicts with two simple observations:

1) We are in a long-term struggle
2) If our policy undermines the basic premise (see above), it is by nature self defeating

What is glalringly obvious to others, is that we stubbornly remain the powerful, rich, free society, and they remain jealous. Although, those now "running" our country may wish to change that.
How so? Admitting a course correction might be necessary could very well be a sign of strength to those we need to influence.

I'd note that the policy shifts towards North Korea look like they could possibly bear some fruit, and Obama's trip to the Mid East this spring might have very well influenced the power shift in Lebanon and the Green Revolution in Iran.

-spence

[QUOTE=spence;707991]There's a big difference between civil and criminal law, and I'd wager that that the majority of criminal law is as applicable today as it was when it was founded.

I am not talking about the MAJORITY of laws.

The laws we're generally talking about have to do with issues like human rights and torture. These I think have been pretty consistent this century...

This century is only a bit more than 8 years old. Perhaps you mean the 20th. There were significant changes and additions then. For instance, U.N. laws on torture changed significantly from applying only to SIGNATORIES to the U. N. conventions to, uselessly, stupidly, self-destructively (in my opinion) to INCLUDE JUST ABOUT ANYBODY IN THE WORLD, signer or not, specifically to "outlaw" what you consider illegal CIA interrogations. By stupidly signing on to such a broad inclusion, you abdicate legal sovereignty to a fickle "World Court" that has no particular interest in the existence of the USA.

We establish laws that say torture is wrong, that establish rules of conduct based on ethics.

Our laws should apply only to those who are in the purview of our social contract. Torture of US citizens would be ethically wrong by those rules so long as those citizens are not engaged in some form of overthrow of our government.

The limits are based on our morals, not theirs, as we are in control.

Our morals are of no interest to "them." They have different morals and laugh at us as puny fools to offer them sanctity in morals they would destroy. And we deserve their scorn when we do so.

This conflicts with two simple observations:

1) We are in a long-term struggle
2) If our policy undermines the basic premise (see above), it is by nature self defeating

So far, I am not seeing in the history of the world, that ethics, rather than power, wins struggles. It has been reputed that RELIGIOUS fervor has, in times and places, changed the course of history. But in this "long-term struggle" it is our opponent who has that fervor, and we have all but abandoned it. Which policy, which basic premise?

How so? Admitting a course correction might be necessary could very well be a sign of strength to those we need to influence.

It could very well be a sign of weakness and a chink in what they hope is the eventual crumbling. Anyway (perhaps I have an autistic trait similar to yours)--in referring to those now running our country wishing to "change that", the "that" is the U.S. being an object of jealousy and the "change" would be us becoming just one of the guys in the fraternity of nations--no better, perhaps a little worse and required to apologize for our oppressions and transgressions.

I'd note that the policy shifts towards North Korea look like they could possibly bear some fruit, and Obama's trip to the Mid East this spring might have very well influenced the power shift in Lebanon and the Green Revolution in Iran.-spence[QUOTE]

How many policy shifts toward North Korea have born fruit? I must admit, I have forgotten what our latest policy is. I remember, in the past, our policies have eventually given NK fruit rather than bearing it. Power shift in Lebanon? From whom to whom? And, again, I'm not familiar with the Green Revolution in Iran.

Philosopher; another name for dead man walking. Spense wistfully feels we should shield ourselves with Unicorns & Candycanes, rather than confront terror.

Spense, do you feel comfortable that others died so you can be safe & cozy philosophizing behind a key board that we should shift policy to gain a moral "superiority" and perhaps endanger US lives. When was the last time moral superiority stopped a bullet?

PS: At the next battle in Afghanistan, would you be so kind to speak with the dune coons-I mean Taliban...bring a basket for your head.

[QUOTE=spence;707991]My wife believes I have an autistic trait to assume others know what I'm thinking.

what your wife means by autistic trait is that you are trapped in your own little world in your head, an alternative universe that you've created that is full of "most peoples" and "everybody's" and "some people's" to whom you've assigned traits and characteristics not necessarily based on reality but that will fit nicely or correspond to your world view, you continually rely on "truisms" that you've invented and are simply false but stated as fact before you wander off into some diatribe ....:smash:... you must drive her crazy...

[QUOTE=spence;707991]My wife believes I have an autistic trait to assume others know what I'm thinking.

what your wife means by autistic trait is that you are trapped in your own little world in your head, an alternative universe that you've created that is full of "most peoples" and "everybody's" and "some people's" to whom you've assigned traits and characteristics not necessarily based on reality but that will fit nicely or correspond to your world view, you continually rely on "truisms" that you've invented and are simply false but stated as fact before you wander off into some diatribe ....:smash:... you must drive her crazy...

I really can't wait for your one thousandth post...figuring with all reasonable probability you'll have to add value to a thread sooner or later. Hell, even a thousand monkeys with typewriters.......

-spence

Philosopher; another name for dead man walking. Spense wistfully feels we should shield ourselves with Unicorns & Candycanes, rather than confront terror.

Spense, do you feel comfortable that others died so you can be safe & cozy philosophizing behind a key board that we should shift policy to gain a moral "superiority" and perhaps endanger US lives. When was the last time moral superiority stopped a bullet?

PS: At the next battle in Afghanistan, would you be so kind to speak with the dune coons-I mean Taliban...bring a basket for your head.
I believe I covered your ilk in a previous post...

Unless we're willing to do anything, then we're doing nothing.

And even ScottW, as confused as he is doesn't typically resort to lame prejudiced remarks :hs:

-spence

This is nonsense. People around the world have long looked to the unique thing that is the USA as a source of inspiration.

-spence

Spence you are an %$%$%$%$%$%$%$

This century is only a bit more than 8 years old. Perhaps you mean the 20th. There were significant changes and additions then.
Yes, thank you for the correction.

For instance, U.N. laws on torture changed significantly from applying only to SIGNATORIES to the U. N. conventions to, uselessly, stupidly, self-destructively (in my opinion) to INCLUDE JUST ABOUT ANYBODY IN THE WORLD, signer or not, specifically to "outlaw" what you consider illegal CIA interrogations. By stupidly signing on to such a broad inclusion, you abdicate legal sovereignty to a fickle "World Court" that has no particular interest in the existence of the USA.[/COLOR]
International Law believes that all people are entitled to their mental integrity. Changes like the third Geneva Convention or the UN Convention on torture are meant to establish standards to help combat torture.

I think many people just can't seem to stomach that we do live on a plant with billions of other people who also have their own interests. Instead of complaining that others don't want to play by our rules alone, we should re-learn the lost art of diplomacy.

Our laws should apply only to those who are in the purview of our social contract. Torture of US citizens would be ethically wrong by those rules so long as those citizens are not engaged in some form of overthrow of our government.

By doing so you're giving the person, rather than the law, the determination as to if their action is legal or moral. If we say as a country that we "don't torture" because of our beliefs, it makes no sense to have convenient exceptions. This is openly hypocritical.

Our morals are of no interest to "them." They have different morals and laugh at us as puny fools to offer them sanctity in morals they would destroy. And we deserve their scorn when we do so.
Quite simply, this is why we have funny little sayings to help guide us through life like about not stooping to their level.

Of course the right-wing reaction to this is to assume I must be wishing we set terrorists up in posh apartments (I'd note that Rush Limbaugh even made money sell t-shirts mocking the luxury conditions at Gitmo, hey Rush, how about you rent a cell?) but that's just phoney rhetoric. Do the minimum under the law, get the job done, be consistent. We have plenty of tools at our disposal.


So far, I am not seeing in the history of the world, that ethics, rather than power, wins struggles. It has been reputed that RELIGIOUS fervor has, in times and places, changed the course of history. But in this "long-term struggle" it is our opponent who has that fervor, and we have all but abandoned it. Which policy, which basic premise?
How much "power" did the Soviet Union pour into Afghanistan, or the US into Vietnam or Iraq?

And to what end?

Did the USSR, at one time a country with a lot of "power" crack because of an opposing hard or soft power?

Our "opponent" in this case is a relatively small group of militant fundamentalists empowered by a very large and complex organism deeply rooted in the cultures and economies of the planet. If it were possible to simply apply "power" and eradicate terror it may be practical to do so.

History has certainly demonstrated that while hard power can be useful, without balance it's useless and often counter productive.

It could very well be a sign of weakness and a chink in what they hope is the eventual crumbling. Anyway (perhaps I have an autistic trait similar to yours)--in referring to those now running our country wishing to "change that", the "that" is the U.S. being an object of jealousy and the "change" would be us becoming just one of the guys in the fraternity of nations--no better, perhaps a little worse and required to apologize for our oppressions and transgressions.
I don't think there's a desire to go that far. Certainly there is a perceived need to reduce the hubris we're often accused of, and that the neocon school of thought was built on.

Personally I believe we need to not compromise our own sovereignty, but must be very measured in policies that give the appearance of "do as I say, not as I do.

How many policy shifts toward North Korea have born fruit? I must admit, I have forgotten what our latest policy is. I remember, in the past, our policies have eventually given NK fruit rather than bearing it. Power shift in Lebanon? From whom to whom? And, again, I'm not familiar with the Green Revolution in Iran.
Obama softened the tone on NKorea and as a result we were positioned to exploit a window of opportunity. N Korean leadership and S Korean leadership recently met in a landmark event. Even the US has been having discussions with N Koreans here in the US. Granted, there's nothing definitive, but you can't influence or control adversaries from a distance.

After Obama's Middle Eastern trip we saw pro-Western factions declare the surprise majority after June elections in Lebanon. In Iran we saw the people rise up and confront their lack of civil rights in a manner not seen since the Revolution. While I wouldn't give sole credit Obama for both of these significant events (it's obviously about the people), certainly an attitude towards mutual respect has given more confidence to the masses who we share far more with than some would like to admit.

-spence

your still an %$%$%$%$%$%$%$

They had said this new report wasn't going to be good, but I didn't think it would contain stuff like this.

-spence


Oh, boo hoo...................:confused:

The smell from the pissing match going on in here is overwhelming.

yes, it's practically torture :rotf2:

[QUOTE=spence;708049] International Law believes that all people are entitled to their mental integrity. Changes like the third Geneva Convention or the UN Convention on torture are meant to establish standards to help combat torture.

The basis of law is to engage a polity in a cooperative endeavor and to deter those who will not cooperate. International Law, I presume, therefore, is to engage nations to cooperate and to deter those who will not. When nations are not in agreement, International law has no basis. When rogues defy International Law and nations do not cooperate to deter them, International Law has no force. Perhaps, you consider the U.S. a rogue or uncooperative nation in its treatment of terrorist detainees. But, at least, the previous administration put up a legal unlawful combatant defence, which I find very credible. The terrorists, on the other hand, I consider absolute rogues totally unconcerned with the legal niceties of International Law, quite content to receive its unmerited protection while planning to destroy the whole caboodle. A law that protects the agent who will destroy it is an ass. It should prosecute, not protect, that agent.

I think many people just can't seem to stomach that we do live on a plant with billions of other people who also have their own interests. Instead of complaining that others don't want to play by our rules alone, we should re-learn the lost art of diplomacy.

We, the U.S., are a part of those billions who have our own interests. We don't complain that others don't want to play by our rules, we may complain about having to play by others' rules. As far as the lost art of diplomacy, as you often like to say, that cuts both ways.

By doing so you're giving the person, rather than the law, the determination as to if their action is legal or moral. If we say as a country that we "don't torture" because of our beliefs, it makes no sense to have convenient exceptions. This is openly hypocritical.

When there is a clear and present danger to the prime principle of existence, a "convenient exception" may trump the high dudgeon of beliefs.

Quite simply, this is why we have funny little sayings to help guide us through life like about not stooping to their level.

Funny little sayings are not so humorous when "their" presumably low level seriously threatens to level you.

Of course the right-wing reaction to this is to assume I must be wishing we set terrorists up in posh apartments (I'd note that Rush Limbaugh even made money sell t-shirts mocking the luxury conditions at Gitmo, hey Rush, how about you rent a cell?) but that's just phoney rhetoric. Do the minimum under the law, get the job done, be consistent. We have plenty of tools at our disposal.

Rush is a covenient straw man. Knocking him down has nothing to do with this discussioin. To what "plenty of tools" are you referring?

How much "power" did the Soviet Union pour into Afghanistan, or the US into Vietnam or Iraq? And to what end?

As for the Soviet Union, apparently not enough power and too much self interest. The US in Vietnam, had we stayed, we would probably now have an ally in South Vietnam comparable to South Korea. In Iraq there was not enough power initially, which the surge corrected. Also, we finally convinced, and/or, the Iraquis finally saw we were on their side and the insurgents were not. Hence, a democratic ally there instead of a nemesis. Of course, if we relinquish our POWER relaltionship with Irag too soon, and we abandon that country as we did South Vietnam, the "insurgents" backed by a superior POWER of money and arms can destroy the good our POWER helped to create.

Did the USSR, at one time a country with a lot of "power" crack because of an opposing hard or soft power?

Yes, without the "hard power" of US military might as a deterrence to the USSR paper tiger might, and US economic POWER, the Soviets could still be cranking.

Our "opponent" in this case is a relatively small group of militant fundamentalists empowered by a very large and complex organism deeply rooted in the cultures and economies of the planet. If it were possible to simply apply "power" and eradicate terror it may be practical to do so.

I agree--Power may ENABLE us to apply your idealistic methods

History has certainly demonstrated that while hard power can be useful, without balance it's useless and often counter productive.

The "balance" would not be possible without the "hard power."

I don't think there's a desire to go that far. Certainly there is a perceived need to reduce the hubris we're often accused of, and that the neocon school of thought was built on.

"Perceived" needs are subjective to the eyes of the beholder. Those who perceive us as hubristic, in my opinion, do so out of various agendas and personal animosities. I am not aware of a "neocon school".

Personally I believe we need to not compromise our own sovereignty, but must be very measured in policies that give the appearance of "do as I say, not as I do.

I don't think we are requiring others to "do as I say", rather we are asking them not to threaten our existence and we will be happy to engage you with commerce and friendly relations.

Spense:Oh so morally superior; wow I am in awe of the depth of your superior intellect and sound unswaying moral hacking. So safe at home, so easy, unicorns & candycanes.
Now I remember why...

Did the USSR, at one time a country with a lot of "power" crack because of an opposing hard or soft power?

Yes, without the "hard power" of US military might as a deterrence to the USSR paper tiger might, and US economic POWER, the Soviets could still be cranking.

I didn't read the whole thing but this part did completely amused me. The USSR was a completely failed government in its final years, politically and economically.

Even without US involvement, the USSR would have eventually failed.

I didn't read the whole thing but this part did completely amused me. The USSR was a completely failed government in its final years, politically and economically.

Even without US involvement, the USSR would have eventually failed.

yeah, I wonder what Europe would look like right now if we'd just left the Soviets to their own devices? they've never REALLY needed us over there in Europe :confused: wait....I know ...the "lost art of diplomacy", that's all that was really needed, it has such a long and successful history of dealing with tyrannical regimes...

I didn't read the whole thing but this part did completely amused me. The USSR was a completely failed government in its final years, politically and economically.

Even without US involvement, the USSR would have eventually failed.
The Soviet Union fell apart for a number of reasons.

Certainly the Soviet economy was quite fragile, and that Reagan positioned the USA quite artfully. He deserves a lot of credit...

I'd also note that Reagan had no fear of engaging his adversaries.

But ultimately it was about the people. Lech Walesa and Pope John Paul 2 particularly had tremendous influence on the collapse of the USSR by empowering the common man.

-spence

Spense:Oh so morally superior; wow I am in awe of the depth of your superior intellect and sound unswaying moral hacking. So safe at home, so easy, unicorns & candycanes.
Now I remember why...

Ahhh...the old Col. Jessep argument. I'd note that at the end of "A Few Good Men" he does go to jail.

-spence

And even ScottW, as confused as he is doesn't typically resort to lame prejudiced remarks :hs:

-spence


that's the nicest thing you've ever said to me Hot Bottom...I think I'm getting weepy :)

I didn't read the whole thing but this part did completely amused me. The USSR was a completely failed government in its final years, politically and economically.

Even without US involvement, the USSR would have eventually failed.

If the USSR failed because it was a completely failed government, that would contradict Spence's contention that it had a lot of power.

To which US involvement in the USSR collapse are you referring?
Star Wars, the arms race, clandestine black ops, spy missions, CIA interventions, diplomacy, flaunting of moral superiority?

As Spence says, the collapse was a confluence of many things. Would those things have gathered without the specter of the US, its promise of freedom and, yes, its military might as a perceived balance and guaranty to the revolutions in Eastern Europe?

Or was it that the USSR failed because it lacked high ethical standards? If it had just cleaned up its ethics act, it wouldn't have needed power? They just didn't live up to the moral high ground of communism/socialism? Those systems do have a different ethic than free market systems.

What do YOU think were the reasons for the collapse? Did the "US involvement" really have no consequence? BTW, glad to have amused you. You are very likeable when you laugh.

If the USSR failed because it was a completely failed government, that would contradict Spence's contention that it had a lot of power.
Not at all, we all know the Soviet military machine was quite large. I've seen estimated figures as large as 330 B USD in 1988.

As Spence says, the collapse was a confluence of many things. Would those things have gathered without the specter of the US, its promise of freedom and, yes, its military might as a perceived balance and guaranty to the revolutions in Eastern Europe?
No, because as Duke says we've never had the high ground :hihi:

Or was it that the USSR failed because it lacked high ethical standards? If it had just cleaned up its ethics act, it wouldn't have needed power? They just didn't live up to the moral high ground of communism/socialism? Those systems do have a different ethic than free market systems.
I think it was the wrong system at the wrong time. Clearly we're better but the only reason Russia is strong today is because their leadership saw the writing on the wall and acted accordingly. Putin's more recent and remarkable success is due to A) Russian nationalism and B) Really high oil revenues.

I'll get to your other blabble later...out of time.

-spence

.[/U]

Obama softened the tone on NKorea and as a result we were positioned to exploit a window of opportunity. N Korean leadership and S Korean leadership recently met in a landmark event. Even the US has been having discussions with N Koreans here in the US. Granted, there's nothing definitive, but you can't influence or control adversaries from a distance.

After Obama's Middle Eastern trip we saw pro-Western factions declare the surprise majority after June elections in Lebanon. In Iran we saw the people rise up and confront their lack of civil rights in a manner not seen since the Revolution. While I wouldn't give sole credit Obama for both of these significant events (it's obviously about the people), certainly an attitude towards mutual respect has given more confidence to the masses who we share far more with than some would like to admit.

-spence


Just when you think you're making some headway with those pesky North Koreans and Iranians with your "softer" tone

UAE Seizes North Korean Weapons Shipment to Iran


By Bill Varner

Aug. 28 (Bloomberg) -- The United Arab Emirates has seized a ship carrying North Korean weapons bound for Iran, in violation of a United Nations arms embargo, diplomats said.

The UAE two weeks ago notified the UN Security Council of the seizure, according to the diplomats, who spoke on condition they aren’t named because the communication hasn’t been made public.

The council committee that monitors enforcement of UN sanctions against North Korea wrote a letter to Iran asking for an explanation and one to the UAE expressing appreciation for the cooperation, the envoys said. No response has been received or further action taken, they said.

The UAE and Iranian missions to the UN didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. The Financial Times reported the weapons seizure earlier today.

UAE seized N.Korea arms shipment bound for Iran 28 Aug 2009 22:38:46 GMT
Source: Reuters
* Arms included rocket launchers, detonators, RPGs

* Seizure of shipment took place on Aug. 14


By Louis Charbonneau

UNITED NATIONS, Aug 28 (Reuters) - The United Arab Emirates has seized a cargo of North Korean weapons being shipped to Iran, which would have violated a U.N. embargo on arms exports from the communist state, Western diplomats said on Friday.

The weapons seized on Aug. 14 included rocket launchers, detonators, munitions and ammunition for rocket-propelled grenades, they said. The ship, called the ANL-Australia, was Australian-owned and flying a Bahamas flag.

Diplomats said the UAE reported the incident, which occurred two weeks ago, to the Security Council sanctions committee on North Korea. The committee sent letters to Tehran and Pyongyang on Aug. 25 informing them of the seizure and demanding a response within 15 days.

"Based on past experience ... we don't expect a very detailed response," one of the diplomats said on condition of anonymity.

Not at all, we all know the Soviet military machine was quite large. I've seen estimated figures as large as 330 B USD in 1988.

So your disputing JohnnyD's contention that the USSR was a completely failed government at the time of its collapse? A government with the power you describe should be able to continue militarily dominating its own people.

No, because as Duke says we've never had the high ground :hihi:

Wow! Really funny blabble.

Putin's more recent and remarkable success is due to A) Russian nationalism and B) Really high oil revenues.

Nationalism and oil revenues. Never heard of those ethical values. Isn't the failure to live up to ethical standards and the rule of law what this thread is essentially about?

I'll get to your other blabble later...out of time.

-spence

So when you have time, you'll blabble back.

Scottw,Detbuch please let us not let facts get in the way of the wise one Spence, the real adults are in charge rediscovering the lost art of diplomacy. This will all work out-I am sure it is just a misunderstanding and those are defensive weapons or a clerical error.
They sure are bearing fruit and unicorns.

Scottw,Detbuch please let us not let facts get in the way of the wise one Spence, the real adults are in charge rediscovering the lost art of diplomacy. This will all work out-I am sure it is just a misunderstanding and those are defensive weapons or a clerical error.
They sure are bearing fruit and unicorns.

For someone that hasn't brought anything to the discussion aside from criticisms of character as opposed to criticisms of facts without any supported recourse, you're quite condescending.

Please troll elsewhere. At least scottw, spence and detbuch put some thought into their posts with some actual evidence to support their position along with the friendly jabs. You're kind of just acting like a #^&#^&#^&#^&.

I'd also note that Reagan had no fear of engaging his adversaries.

But ultimately it was about the people. Lech Walesa and Pope John Paul 2 particularly had tremendous influence on the collapse of the USSR by empowering the common man.

-spence

Reagan also had no fear extending government spending, so much so that adversaries could not keep up. No cries of wealth distribution there. I guess when its in everyone's "best interest" and the great sake of "national security" anything goes.

We do not "always" believe that the ends justify the means, but at some critical times, they very well may.

...Like smashing an inordinately hot stripper after you've promised honor and obey your wife.

Speaks to the slippery slope the above statement has stepped out upon.

Spence brings up some good points. He has used good analogies to further my understanding; the aforementioned above being one of them.

Reagan also had no fear extending government spending, so much so that adversaries could not keep up. No cries of wealth distribution there. I guess when its in everyone's "best interest" and the great sake of "national security" anything goes.

Good point. We should dig up some quotes from conservatives bragging about how Reagan "outspent" the commies :hihi:

-spence

Good morning warriors of the key board. Day 3.

Good morning warriors of the key board. Day 3.

:rotf2:

The basis of law is to engage a polity in a cooperative endeavor and to deter those who will not cooperate. International Law, I presume, therefore, is to engage nations to cooperate and to deter those who will not. When nations are not in agreement, International law has no basis. When rogues defy International Law and nations do not cooperate to deter them, International Law has no force.
You seem to be assuming that nations are never in agreement. This is often not the case.

Perhaps, you consider the U.S. a rogue or uncooperative nation in its treatment of terrorist detainees. But, at least, the previous administration put up a legal unlawful combatant defence, which I find very credible.
You're mixing issues here. There is an argument to be made for the Bush policy toward treatment of unlawful combatants, but that doesn't supersede existing US law prohibiting torture.

The terrorists, on the other hand, I consider absolute rogues totally unconcerned with the legal niceties of International Law, quite content to receive its unmerited protection while planning to destroy the whole caboodle. A law that protects the agent who will destroy it is an ass. It should prosecute, not protect, that agent.
So there's no line in the sand? Perhaps we should have used donkeys to rape detainees because it would have been funny?

If we are to have standards of behavior established as law, they can't have exceptions after the fact. Bush could have gone to Congress to ask for torture laws to be revised, but he did not.

[COLOR="blue"]When there is a clear and present danger to the prime principle of existence, a "convenient exception" may trump the high dudgeon of beliefs.
This is the attitude Bin Laden is banking on.

Frankly I believe we shouldn't let a terrorist define what be believe to be our prime principals. I seem to remember a thread a few months ago where we were taught that Conservatives were different than Liberals in that their "principals" were unshakable.

Rush is a covenient straw man. Knocking him down has nothing to do with this discussioin. To what "plenty of tools" are you referring?
He's audience represents a large block of Americans, many of whom share his attitudes.

Tools, plenty of tools for legal interrogation which when performed by professionals is quite effective.

As for the Soviet Union, apparently not enough power and too much self interest. The US in Vietnam, had we stayed, we would probably now have an ally in South Vietnam comparable to South Korea. In Iraq there was not enough power initially, which the surge corrected. Also, we finally convinced, and/or, the Iraquis finally saw we were on their side and the insurgents were not. Hence, a democratic ally there instead of a nemesis. Of course, if we relinquish our POWER relaltionship with Irag too soon, and we abandon that country as we did South Vietnam, the "insurgents" backed by a superior POWER of money and arms can destroy the good our POWER helped to create.
The Surge wouldn't have likely been successful had Sunni's not came to the realization that if they continued to fight US Troops that Shiites would gain complete control.

While I'm sure there have been gains in Iraq due to the use of hard power and influence, a good much of it has either been short lived or counter productive.

I'd also note that Iraq is nearly asking us to leave now.




Yes, without the "hard power" of US military might as a deterrence to the USSR paper tiger might, and US economic POWER, the Soviets could still be cranking.
I think you're forgetting "populist" power.

I agree--Power may ENABLE us to apply your idealistic methods
Not idealistic at all, just pragmatic. I'm all for hard power to be applied when appropriate, but we can't loose sight of the long-term strategy.

"Perceived" needs are subjective to the eyes of the beholder. Those who perceive us as hubristic, in my opinion, do so out of various agendas and personal animosities. I am not aware of a "neocon school".
I think some are personally upset that hubris has tarnished our image which hurts our long-term objectives. This sounds like a reasonable "agenda."

I don't think we are requiring others to "do as I say", rather we are asking them not to threaten our existence and we will be happy to engage you with commerce and friendly relations.
The neocon "school" would argue that our existence is threatened if we are not the de facto leader of the world.

-spence

This argument isn't about the timing of the release.

It's about the obvious duplicity that undermines our real objectives.

And for being weak, it takes a far stronger person to live by their own word.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And no one ever found out about these interogations because at the end of the interogation they killed the interogee.

And no one ever found out about these interogations because at the end of the interogation they killed the interogee.
It does look like a lot of detainees got the crap kicked out of them so it wouldn't surprise me if there were quite a few.

-spence

Its funny how it, at the time of capture, would have been ok to shoot them in the head, but since we did not kill them, we can't use any interrogation techniques that may be "uncomfortable"?

I sure "Mr. Towlie-ban" is just happy we didn't kill him and happy we don't kill our prisoners. He knows someday, he will be released and be able to go home. Torture, even that like was done to John McCain seems far more humane than killing them on the battlefield.

I as a retired military man, I feel that one of the only reasons we take prisoners is, not to show mercy, but the chance to gain information from them. Limit the chance of gaining information, or make me read him Miranda rights to him, will greatly increase his chance of being shot instead of captured......

Way too much hassle to keep them alive, nowadays.

Torture, even that like was done to John McCain seems far more humane than killing them on the battlefield.

And McCain, who suffered it, is very anti-torture, no?

Lovely how we JUST found out that waterboarding helped in the last round of interrogation... :smash:

Lovely how we JUST found out that waterboarding helped in the last round of interrogation... :smash:
So says #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney. Unfortunately the report isn't quite that conclusive.

-spence

So says #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney. Unfortunately the report isn't quite that conclusive.

-spence

The reports are classified. Well at least they were classified. Now anything and everything is subject to release. The Pelosi's of the world don't care one bit about our national security , to them it's just politics as usual.:fury:

The reports are classified. Well at least they were classified. Now anything and everything is subject to release. The Pelosi's of the world don't care one bit about our national security , to them it's just politics as usual.:fury:

A lot of this report was redacted.

The pro-torture crowd will say that because EIT's were used at any time on some key terrorists, that the harsh methods are justified, regardless of when information was obtained or how credible it was.

This is the clever word game that Cheney has been playing in interviews this week.

Quite the contrary though, I'd note that the inspector who compiled the report states clearly that they couldn't determine if EIT's specifically were responsible for gaining any information.

An interesting note in the report is that KSM told the Red Cross he made a lot of stuff up just to get them to stop using the harsher methods, and that he tried to only give information he believed we already knew.

The net is we will probably never know for sure.

-spence

While suddenly on the moral high ground investigation, can someone tell me

why there was no investigation into the bomb down Gaddafi's chimney,

which put him on ice for quite awhile, Clinton's bombing of the Sudan aspirin factory and

the recent asasination of one of al qaeda's top 5 leaders?

Makes a few dunkings, sleep deprivation and verbal threats child's play compared to the above.

While suddenly on the moral high ground investigation, can someone tell me

why there was no investigation into the bomb down Gaddafi's chimney,

which put him on ice for quite awhile, Clinton's bombing of the Sudan aspirin factory and

the recent asasination of one of al qaeda's top 5 leaders?

Makes a few dunkings, sleep deprivation and verbal threats child's play compared to the above.

I'm sure some might say there's room to argue the legality of such actions under US Law and International conventions. I'd note that Clinton has taken a ton of heat for his "illegal" use of force in the Balkans, primarily by the GOP.

...but that's not really the point.

There's a big difference between how you treat someone at arms length vs a person who's under your "control".

-spence

There's a big difference between how you treat someone at arms length vs a person who's under your "control".

-spence

Ya mean there's a difference between killing with a knife or killing
with a rocket ?

Only difference is the guy who gets bombed never knows what hit him.
They're both dead. :)

Only difference is the guy who gets bombed never knows what hit him.
They're both dead. :)

If someone stands before you, and you know they mean you harm, you may shoot them.

But if that same person is in cuffs and rendered impotent, even though you know they still would like to do you harm...do you still kill them?

I think most would agree that wouldn't be moral. Certainly most if not all our laws are designed around such beliefs.

Blame the Jesus, he started all this "turn the other cheek" stuff :hihi:

-spence

If someone stands before you, and you know they mean you harm, you may shoot them.


-spence

Does that mean that if a terrorist is 2,000 miles away in a house making a
plan to do harm to innocent victims, you don't send a Tomahawk
to stop him?

Have there been any captured terrorists that have been killed by us in
handcuffs?

Does that mean that if a terrorist is 2,000 miles away in a house making a
plan to do harm to innocent victims, you don't send a Tomahawk
to stop him?
Depends.

Have there been any captured terrorists that have been killed by us in handcuffs?
The reporting certainly indicates this has occurred many times, but I'm not aware of any credible count.

But it's a slippery slope argument, where we had erected laws to keep us from sliding further than we wanted. These have clearly been passed.

-spence

They should threaten to make the terrorists read this thread a few time, they would give it all up.

They should threaten to make the terrorists read this thread a few time, they would give it all up.

:gh:

-spence

They should threaten to make the terrorists read this thread a few time, they would give it all up.


:rotflmao: :hihi: Oh man,Duke, THAT was funny. :D

Actually what would work best is sit them in a big circle and have Spence read Mother Goose Nursery rhymes (also known as Health care bill) to them... within a few hours we'd know all their secrets.....
:rotf2:

...Like smashing an inordinately hot stripper after you've promised honor and obey your wife.

Speaks to the slippery slope the above statement has stepped out upon.

You must be an EXTRAORDINARILY randy man if "smashing" a stripper is as critical a necessity as protecting yourself against a clear and present danger to your existence.

I was wondering the same thing...cheating on your wife with a stripper is somehow analgous to harsh interrogations of terrorists to protect American lives ?....have to admit, they got me on this one ...and this furthered his understanding of the subject and something about a slippery slope again?....I don't know... the slippery slope is the continued minimalization of the danger...this claim that somehow our standing in the world is diminished by these interrogations is bogus, seems to me that any decent , hardworking individual around the world and particularly those that live directly under the threat that these finatics pose would understand perfectly who we are dealing with and would applaud our efforts to ferret these animals out and thwart their plans...the libs vociferously politicize this with feigned outrage and partial truths which provide fodder for the oppressive regimes that control their media and feed their populations lies and distortions and then organize anti- US marches, burn some American flags and the libs point and say...see...see...the world hates US.....as usual, the lib progressives find themselves on the same side of the fence as America's enemies and see no shame in that....as with the above analogy, Spence's logic is distorted and based on a jaundiced world view which is mostly fallacy and revisionist to fit a template...

like this:

"I'm sure some might say there's room to argue the legality of such actions under US Law and International conventions. I'd note that Clinton has taken a ton of heat for his "illegal" use of force in the Balkans, primarily by the GOP." you ARE kidding right?

and this:
I seem to remember a thread a few months ago where we were taught that Conservatives were different than Liberals in that their "principals" were unshakable. noone ever said this, the thread was a discussion about the difference between principles and values

this:
"The neocon "school" would argue that our existence is threatened if we are not the de facto leader of the world. "huh????? make up your mind..is it "neocon school" or neocon "school"?

"Not at all, we all know the Soviet military machine was quite large."hey, he finally got one right!!!!
SHAZAM!

virtually every Spence Alynski statement begins with a false premise and then is expounded upon based on that premise
this was my favorite
"The reporting certainly indicates this has occurred many times, but I'm not aware of any credible count." Spence

so it happened repeatedly just not credibly?

You seem to be assuming that nations are never in agreement. This is often not the case.

The "seem" is all yours. I never (except in this sentence) said anything close to "never."

You're mixing issues here. There is an argument to be made for the Bush policy toward treatment of unlawful combatants, but that doesn't supersede existing US law prohibiting torture.

Your speaking as if it is "wrote fact" that US law was broken. Isn't this being "investigated?" Has the guilty verdict already been rendered?

So there's no line in the sand? Perhaps we should have used donkeys to rape detainees because it would have been funny?

One of your typical non-sequitors.

If we are to have standards of behavior established as law, they can't have exceptions after the fact. Bush could have gone to Congress to ask for torture laws to be revised, but he did not.

So much for the importance of the "rule of law." If you don't want to break a law--change it.

This is the attitude Bin Laden is banking on.

Bin Laden banked on the attitude that we would be too soft to fight the war we did and nearly lost his life savings (maybe he did, we're still not 100% sure he is alive). And, if your right, he is banking that there will be enough people like you to turn against what we've done and turn tail in defeat. He may prove right on that.

Frankly I believe we shouldn't let a terrorist define what be believe to be our prime principals. I seem to remember a thread a few months ago where we were taught that Conservatives were different than Liberals in that their "principals" were unshakable.

Frankly, it is your fear and loathing of the prime principle (to exist) and its dominance over the niceties of your rule of law and high standards of ethics that he counts on. The terrorists have not defined the prime principle--it is self evident and even they can't escape it, though some seem to prefer the 70 virgins awaiting their martyrdom to the miserable life they have on this earth. And the thread you refer to did not speak of "unshakeable" principles, rather concrete foundations. Nor did I, in that thread say that the rule of law or high ethical standards were the highest principles. What was discussed at length was liberals lack of a concrete foundation and your slippery, shifty language which you display, IN ABUNDANCE, in this thread.

He's audience represents a large block of Americans, many of whom share his attitudes.

Neither he nor his large block of Americans are posting here. As I said, he has nothing to do with this discussion except to become a convenient, irrelevent, punching bag for you and, may I add, a distraction.

Tools, plenty of tools for legal interrogation which when performed by professionals is quite effective.

You haven't named any tools, just used more squishy, puffy language.

The Surge wouldn't have likely been successful had Sunni's not came to the realization that if they continued to fight US Troops that Shiites would gain complete control.

The Sunis could have realized that BEFORE the surge. If they recognized it AFTER the surge, the added POWER was effective, ergo the surge DID WORK. And it is your BIASED opinion that the so-called Suni realization was the ONLY reason it did. In your one-sided view there was no way that Iraqis, in general, were seeing, via our not cutting and running, dieing, and the surge strategy to embed with the people rather than separating from them, that WE supported their government and the insurgents DID NOT. And, of course, you totally disregard the Kurds.

While I'm sure there have been gains in Iraq due to the use of hard power and influence, a good much of it has either been short lived or counter productive.
I think your forgetting "populist" power.

A good much is still living and very productive. The overall economy is better now. Infrastructure is restored and IMPROVED. The stink and fear of Sadam is gone. The majority of people are tasting freedom they never knew before, and feeling a new found "populist power"--IN SPITE of your constantly negative and slippery language.

I'd also note that Iraq is nearly asking us to leave now.

Iraq has "nearly" (more of that pesky slippery verbiage) asked us to leave for a long time. It has always been assumed and promised that we would and that we would do so if they demanded it. THAT HAS NOT YET HAPPENED. And when it does--hooray!

Not idealistic at all, just pragmatic. I'm all for hard power to be applied when appropriate, but we can't loose sight of the long-term strategy.

I hope we stick it out and help Iraq maintain its democratic, pluralistic, secular, (to what extent those are possible) government.

I think some are personally upset that hubris has tarnished our image which hurts our long-term objectives. This sounds like a reasonable "agenda."

Sounds like more of your slippery, shifty, generalized, unspecific, unconcrete, indirect, gobbledygook.

The neocon "school" would argue that our existence is threatened if we are not the de facto leader of the world. -spence

Actually, as for WHATEVER the neocon "school", in your biased opinion "would argue" (as if you knew), I'll answer a la Spence--WHO CARES?

Actually, as for WHATEVER the neocon "school", in your biased opinion "would argue" (as if you knew), I'll answer a la Spence--WHO CARES?

You obviously, as you feel obligated to respond line for line.

I'd note your text has gone from green to red, further proof that non-violent techniques can be perfectly effective at breaking an adversary! :jester:

And you're perhaps spending more time attacking me and how I speak than you are the ideas I present. More fodder for my assertion that conservatives tend to be obsessed with personality rather than substance.

-spence

And you're perhaps spending more time attacking me and how I speak than you are the ideas I present. More fodder for my assertion that conservatives tend to be obsessed with personality rather than substance.

-spence

Agreed.

oh... waaaaaa...Spence Alynski, the great condescender can dish it out but can't take it, he simply pointed out that your "ideas" are flawed and "presented" in a most slippery way...it's one thing to deal with substance but when you continually deal in false assertions and outright misstatements of fact it becomes a personality thing...the only way to respond to you is line by line as you create falsehoods and straw dogs in nearly every line...you should like the RED Spence...

oh... waaaaaa...Spence Alynski, the great condescender can dish it out but can't take it, he simply pointed out that your "ideas" are flawed and "presented" in a most slippery way...it's one thing to deal with substance but when you continually deal in false assertions and outright misstatements of fact it becomes a personality thing...the only way to respond to you is line by line as you create falsehoods and straw dogs in nearly every line...you should like the RED Spence...

Agreed.

You obviously, as you feel obligated to respond line for line.


I don't feel any more "obligated" than you do. You post much more than I do. BTW, my "who cares?" response was, as I made clear, specifically to your opinion of the neocon "school", not to your whole thread. And it was an exact copy or your response to Fly Rod in his thread on John Edwards.

I'd note your text has gone from green to red, further proof that non-violent techniques can be perfectly effective at breaking an adversary! :jester:

There, I've gone from red to purple, so I guess I've started to recover from the thrashing of your non-violent techniques. Actually, the reason I've gone to color responses is purely technical. I don't know how or what buttons to push to block off the quotes to which I'm responding, so I tried the bold fonts, but that looked too "violent"/angry. Then I tried the color stuff, which is fun/playful. Now that I see that this will be interpreted as having some psychological meaning, I'm at a loss as what to do. Oh, well, I'll just go on having fun with the colors. I suppose, when I use green again, it'll mean that I have been convinced to support man-made global warming.

And you're perhaps spending more time attacking me and how I speak than you are the ideas I present. More fodder for my assertion that conservatives tend to be obsessed with personality rather than substance.-spence

I certainly don't mean to attack you, personally, Spence. From what I've seen in these threads, I'd say your a great guy. You're certainly fun to argue with. We could probably have some long, fruitless, entertaining debates over some brewski. I try, I think, to respond to your ideas. In rereading my post, it is clear to me that I directly responded, line by line, to a statement you made, and when I referred to you, it was the persona you presented with your words, not whoever YOU actually are. And, yes, your diction is, quite often, to me, not precise enough. It loses the impact it should have because it is too hedgy, as if avoiding being too direct. Maybe, rather than seeing my opinion as an attack, you might take it, or leave it, as a correction, such as those statements, to which you refer, that some perceive to be anti-american, but are actually meant to strengthen America. Of course, you are rather specific and direct when you attack (in your red, violent mode) others in these threads.

Agreed.

Disagree.

Disagree.

Butch, you have to keep in mind that Spence likes to play devil's advocate. And he'll usually come up with something that's worded in a way that makes it sound a little convincing, if not confusing enough to have some people believe him. He definitley knows the right language to spin things to sound good to people like JD who is like Marci to Spence's Peppermint Patty.

He definitley knows the right language to spin things to sound good to people like JD who is like Marci to Spence's Peppermint Patty.

Haha... I just like fanning the pissing match fires. I've just been reading this thread for comedy's sake now. Nothing really going on in it any more.

That was pretty friekin funny Duke.

Day 4 and this thread still has legs... Way to go keyboard orators of the electronic realm.

Haha... I just like fanning the pissing match fires. I've just been reading this thread for comedy's sake now. Nothing really going on in it any more.

I actually forgot what this is about. And since I usually have nothing of substance to add to threads anyways, I resort to trying to get a rise out of you and Spince.:grins:

I actually forgot what this is about. And since I usually have nothing of substance to add to threads anyways, I resort to trying to get a rise out of you and Spince.:grins:

Exactly. 4 pages and about 10 topics covered.

There is nothing so vile and despicable as a someone that would risk and sacrifice the lives of innocents as a means of stroking their own pompous over inflated ego.

There is nothing so vile and despicable as a someone that would risk and sacrifice the lives of innocents as a means of stroking their own pompous over inflated ego.

Are we still talking about Obama, or have we reverted to Bush talk again?