Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trial

[carlfense]

"I wanted to prove it wasn't torture," Mancow said. "They cut off our heads, we put water on their face..

"It is such an odd feeling to have water poured down your nose with your head back...It was instantaneous...and I don't want to say this: absolutely torture."

 

 

 

http://www.nbcchicag...l#ixzz1tuhlqacc

[carlfense]

And for good measure...

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808

[JJ Husker]

 

I guess I didn't realize that our morality was conditional on recognition of that morality by others.

 

"Why do we need to be better than them?" That is and should be a pretty un-American statement.

 

That's the problem, our morality is not conditional on recognition of that morality by others. I'm not the one in this discussion who is concerned with how others perceive it. I know our morality and motives are superior to those of our enemies. Whether or not we utilize some gray area enhanced interrogation techniques doesn't begin to put us in the same catagory as them.

 

"Why do we need to be better than them?" was not a question presented to suggest that we not be better than them. We have a very long way to go to get to the point where the good we do in the world is outweighed by the bad we do. I am merely suggesting that, in war, we need to do what is in the best interest of our troops and our citizens. If that comes at the comfort or lives of some enemy combatants or terrorists, so be it. Since you broached the subject of what is un-American, let me tell you what I think is un-American.

 

1- It is un-American to throw a past vice President under the war crimes bus when his only motive was protecting US citizens and troops. Sure he may have been treading a technical fine line but, you have to ask yourself why. Unless you have some evidence that he was advancing policy for any reason other than he felt it would be the best course of action to protect US lives? Personally, I would be ashamed and embarrassed if I were the one calling Cheney a war criminal based on nothing more than what is known and what you have presented.

 

2- It is un-American to place the safety and well being of enemy combatants, terrorists, and those who provide them haven ahead of US troops and US citizens. I don't care how down and dirty the fighting gets, our survival is paramount to theirs. Pushing gray area issues to the favor of our enemies harms our ability to defend ourselves. Likewise, pushing our morality down to the levels of our enemies harms our ability to protect and defend ourselves but, I am not proposing we do that. I'm not even sure we could stoop that low but crossing that gray line with our toes once in awhile, when it is done for the right reasons, is surely no reason to come unhinged over how terrible the big bad USA is.

[carlfense]

I'm not the one in this discussion who is concerned with how others perceive it.

Who besides you is concerned with that? You said this: "It seems nobody around the globe feels we are exceptional in our actions so maybe it is time we shed that double standard that handicaps us." You said that if people don't agree that we are exceptional then we should stoop to their level. Those quoted words are your own, correct? Perhaps you would like to walk them back.

 

"Why do we need to be better than them?" was not a question presented to suggest that we not be better than them. We have a very long way to go to get to the point where the good we do in the world is outweighed by the bad we do. I am merely suggesting that, in war, we need to do what is in the best interest of our troops and our citizens. If that comes at the comfort or lives of some enemy combatants or terrorists, so be it.

 

I'm unwilling to sacrifice our morality for alleged (and hypothetical!) short term gain. You seem all to willing to cast it aside.

 

Since you broached the subject of what is un-American, let me tell you what I think is un-American.

 

 

1- It is un-American to throw a past vice President under the war crimes bus when his only motive was protecting US citizens and troops. Sure he may have been treading a technical fine line but, you have to ask yourself why. Unless you have some evidence that he was advancing policy for any reason other than he felt it would be the best course of action to protect US lives? Personally, I would be ashamed and embarrassed if I were the one calling Cheney a war criminal based on nothing more than what is known and what you have presented.

 

Quite the contrary. I'm proud to stand up for what I believe in. I won't blindly defend our leaders when they commit war crimes. Far from being un-American, that sort of willingness to self-analyze and self-police is quintessentially American.

 

2- It is un-American to place the safety and well being of enemy combatants, terrorists, and those who provide them haven ahead of US troops and US citizens.

Who argued for that? The only way your strawman works is if our only choices are torturing our or troops dying. That's simply not the case and you're smart enough to know better.

 

I'm not even sure we could stoop that low but crossing that gray line with our toes once in awhile, when it is done for the right reasons, is surely no reason to come unhinged over how terrible the big bad USA is.

 

Just like clockwork you try to spin my argument which is in FAVOR of the essential goodness of our country into being an attack. I'm arguing for upholding our collective morals. You're arguing that we need to commit bad acts because our enemies do. Then you try to act like I am the one who is attacking the United States. People with attitudes like your own do far more to threaten this country than people who expect us to act morally. If you want something to be ashamed of . . . there it is. For that matter, it's far more shameful than calling a war criminal a war criminal.

[johnnyrodgers20]

I also find it enlightening how some react so mildly to "war crimes" of others i.e. Hussein, Bin Laden, Al Queda, etc. but become indignant when someone like Cheney suggests we perform enhanced interrogations on enemy combatants and prisoners of war. I guess some view it as worse when the goal is to stop terrorists from killing US citizens and soldiers rather than when dictators, terrorists, and thugs actually kill us. IMO, "war crime" is pretty much an oxymoron anyway. When your enemy doesn't operate within any rules or moral code of behavior, I don't see how you can be expected to not push the limits in the interest of self preservation. Cheney, a war criminal? Technically? Slightly, maybe. Reasonably? No way. I would've hoped that we learned a few things from events like Vietnam but it is obvious some still like to see us engaged in battle with our hands tied.

Please find one post from me defending the war crimes of Hussein, Bin Laden, or Al Queda. One post.

 

The day we sacrifice our morals just because our enemies have done so is the day that America loses any possible claim at exceptionalism. Whether you realize it or not you've just made a wonderful argument for us being no better than our enemies.

 

I, on the other hand, expect MY country to abide by a higher moral standard than Hussein, Bin Laden, or Al Queda. Your words indicate that you do not share those expectations.

 

 

I think we are better than them there idea of interrogation is a beheading, that is torture. We did not committ torture and still have the high morals you speak of. if you believed we tortured I am sure there is nothing we cna say to change your mind the only thing we can say no is you are wrong.

You're wrong. We did torture. We have now stopped.

 

I do look forward to your voluntary waterboarding. It'll just be unpleasant . . . not torture. Just unpleasant. Should be an enlightening experience for everyone.

 

 

You are wonrg we did not torture and so there is no way we coul dhave stopped torturing, thankyou. And it will be delightful to see you next to a drone dropped on a terrorist. You will be an innocent casualty, you can have solace in that.

[johnnyrodgers20]

We did uphold our morals, you just perceive it to be torture, your right to do so. We, on the other hand, viewed it as enhanced interrogation, that is much different than torture. And our right to do so, and we have the POTUS on our hands. BO wouldn't harbor a war criminal that would make him an accessory after the fact, a crime in and of itself!!

[carlfense]

We did uphold our morals, you just perceive it to be torture, your right to do so. We, on the other hand, viewed it as enhanced interrogation, that is much different than torture. And our right to do so, and we have the POTUS on our hands. BO wouldn't harbor a war criminal that would make him an accessory after the fact, a crime in and of itself!!

Apparently you don't know that we (the US) executed Japanese soldiers who waterboarded American POWs. We regarded it as a war crime. Those pesky facts. Always getting in the way of Johnnny's beliefs.

 

How is Obama an accessory after the fact? You keep saying that but you can't explain why.

[johnnyrodgers20]

We did uphold our morals, you just perceive it to be torture, your right to do so. We, on the other hand, viewed it as enhanced interrogation, that is much different than torture. And our right to do so, and we have the POTUS on our hands. BO wouldn't harbor a war criminal that would make him an accessory after the fact, a crime in and of itself!!

Apparently you don't know that we (the US) executed Japanese soldiers who waterboarded American POWs. We regarded it as a war crime. Those pesky facts. Always getting in the way of Johnnny's beliefs.

 

How is Obama an accessory after the fact? You keep saying that but you can't explain why.

 

Alittle distortion of what really happened,

 

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2009/04/24/did-cnns-paul-begala-mangle-facts-waterboarding-history

 

 

The name is johnnyrodgers20 or JR20. I find your tone very condescending and below you. I just said he is harboring Cheney, if Cheney is a war criminal then he is protecting him from the international community, isn't that an accessory after the fact?. Did you not read the quote you posted of mine?

[carlfense]

Newsbusters. Haha.

 

Condescending? Whatever could you mean? Johnny, I simply cannot fathom what you're talking about.

[johnnyrodgers20]

Newsbusters. Haha.

 

Condescending? Whatever could you mean? Johnny, I simply cannot fathom what you're talking about.

 

 

My bad, I thought you were smarter than that. You made your point you have a hard time fathoming things I see that from this thread. Must be nice to have a mod to back you up also.

[johnnyrodgers20]

Newsbusters. Haha.

 

Condescending? Whatever could you mean? Johnny, I simply cannot fathom what you're talking about.

 

 

Nice retort where is the story wrong?

[JJ Husker]

 

Who besides you is concerned with that? You said this: "It seems nobody around the globe feels we are exceptional in our actions so maybe it is time we shed that double standard that handicaps us." You said that if people don't agree that we are exceptional then we should stoop to their level. Those quoted words are your own, correct? Perhaps you would like to walk them back.

 

Just like clockwork you try to spin my argument which is in FAVOR of the essential goodness of our country into being an attack. I'm arguing for upholding our collective morals. You're arguing that we need to commit bad acts because our enemies do. Then you try to act like I am the one who is attacking the United States. People with attitudes like your own do far more to threaten this country than people who expect us to act morally. If you want something to be ashamed of . . . there it is. For that matter, it's far more shameful than calling a war criminal a war criminal.

Incorrect for the bolded. Just like clockwork you try to spin my position which is in favor of protecting US lives into the equivelant of being no better than our enemies. I'm arguing that our collective morals do not need to be lightyears ahead of our enemies when the result may be to our detriment. You're arguing that we have no business flirting on the edges of what is considered morally acceptable even though our enemies do not concern themselves with that issue at all.

 

Let's be honest, we both are in about the same position. We both want to protect US lives and neither one of us wants us to get there by acting immorally. The only difference is a thin gray line which we are on opposite sides of. If we have to error, I want it to be in favor of protecting US lives and you want it to be in favor of acting morally. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with either of those positions. I just place a little more emphasis on one side and you on the other. I do not pretend to think that "torture" necessarily makes us safer. I just wish you wouldn't pretend that enhanced interrogation techniques always cause more harm than good. As far as calling it "torture", I am not qualified to make that assessment and neither are a radio shock jock or a Vanity Fair columnist. What I think I know about it is; if our own troops are subjected to it in SEER training, it may very well be extremely uncomfortable, painful, and emotionally challenging but, I am unconvinced that takes it off the table in absolutely all circumstances.

 

I still do not see the benefit of calling Cheney a war criminal and emboldening our enemies by pursuing that process. I think you're smart enough to realize that any gray area policy he may have proposed was done with US safety as its basis. He is not a monster, he simply pushed the limits in the interest of protecting America. I think that distinction is of primary importance. I think the "war crimes" issue is best left for advancement by those who it supposedly harmed. I don't think they need or deserve our help in calling him out on it. If some terrorist organization or despotic regime wants to claim Cheney violated Geneva convention, then let them be the ones to pursue it. I can hear the testimony now- sure we decappitate peoples heads and our goal is to kill as many innocent US citizens as possible but but but but he advocated waterboarding and comfort deprivation techniques, he's the bad man. I don't think it serves our interests, internally or externally, to refer to him as a war criminal. It's not an issue of blindly defending him. It's an issue of understanding how and why it came to be.

[carlfense]

I think I'm having a hard time understanding your moral relativism. The morality or immorality of our actions is not contingent on the actions of our enemies. Torture is torture no matter what they do.

 

You're a Christian, right? Does a sinful act become righteous if your enemies are doing worse?

[JJ Husker]

I think I'm having a hard time understanding your moral relativism. The morality or immorality of our actions is not contingent on the actions of our enemies. Torture is torture no matter what they do.

 

You're a Christian, right? Does a sinful act become righteous if your enemies are doing worse?

 

I think you are understanding that my view is a form of moral relativism. As far as being Christian, I've always struggled with the turn the other cheek scenario. I won't claim that makes me a better person but it may keep me from getting hit a second time. And no, I don't believe a persons sin is lessened simply because another is doing it to a greater degree. But in a case like self defense, it may not be a sin at all to defend yourself against an aggressor. I thinkyou understand my position and just don't agree with it. I can live with that.

[carlfense]

John McCain agrees.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/dec/18/john-mccain/history-supports-mccains-stance-on-waterboarding/

 

I'm shocked . . . SHOCKED . . . that Newsbusters got their facts wrong and assumed that there was only one Japanese war criminal prosecuted for water boarding.