Oh flock...

[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

[Cool Beans]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

[Fly Rod]

You hit the nail on the head Cool Beans.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Cool Beans

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by 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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[detbuch]

[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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[scottw]

[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 ....... you must drive her crazy...

[spence]

[QUOTE=scottw;708007]

Originally Posted by spence

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 ....... 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

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by 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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

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

[Cool Beans]

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.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Cool Beans

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...

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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

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

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by 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.