Oh flock...

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such a rule that endangers the society that created the contract, then that rule IS A ASS, A IDIOT and needs to be repealed.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

[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...

[Duke41]

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Duke41

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

[justplugit]

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[Duke41]

Originally Posted by 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 %$%$%$%$%$%$%$

[Bocephus]

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Bocephus

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

Am I missing anything?

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Am I missing anything?

-spence

common sense and stones .....

[TommyTuna]

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by TommyTuna

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

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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

-spence

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

[Duke41]

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

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by spence

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...................

[JohnnyD]

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

[scottw]

yes, it's practically torture

[TommyTuna]

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...

[spence]

Originally Posted by TommyTuna

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

[TommyTuna]

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.