You hit the nail on the head Cool Beans.

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.

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such a rule that endangers the society that created the contract, then that rule IS A ASS, A IDIOT and needs to be repealed.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.

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?

No.

-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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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=scottw;708007]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

I believe I covered your ilk in a previous post...

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

-spence

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

Yes, thank you for the correction.

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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 %$%$%$%$%$%$%$

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...

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...

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

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

-spence

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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 #^&#^&#^&#^&.