Oh flock...

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by 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...

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?

[detbuch]

[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.

[EarnedStripes44]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by EarnedStripes44

...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.

[scottw]

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?