crozby 0 #26 January 17, 2005 QuoteHow anyone can sit there and so blindly believe that if we just don't upset terrorist they will become passive and learn to love us is beyond me. Look at how Israel tried to pacify Arafat. He was asked what it would take to end the terrorists attacks and then walked away from the negotiations when it became clear he was going to get 95% of what he asked for. When will people finally understand that these people want to kill you and your family because you aren't a Muslim? When will people understand the terrorists are brain-washing the young Muslims in the Mosques to hate Western Civilization? When will people finally understand this is a Cultural and Religious War? How many more dead Americans do you think we should have found acceptable? How many more terrorists attacks should we have suffered until we did something? Does anyone honestly believe that just by going into Afghanistan, that the terrorist attacks would have ended? Do you have any evidence that Iraq was doing any of this stuff prior to the invasion? If so, please would you post it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slug 1 #27 January 17, 2005 There is more than one way to "refuse" a "illegal order" One way is the "Whatever" factor or "yes sir". The results of some orders are easy to follow "deliver 50 widgets by noon" The results of other orders are hard to track every try and look for a left handed monkey wrench A order to Soften up prisoners to make them easier to interagate is ambigiuos at best and gives the person who gave the order plausable deniability. The animal that went the extra mile to abuse the POW's, enemy combatents etc, got the minimum of what he deserved. Should the people at the highest level of the pentagon connect the dots and go after the officers and contractors for peerforming the abuses and giving the orders of course! But it don't work that way Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #28 January 17, 2005 How anyone can sit there and so blindly believe that if we just don't upset terrorist they will become passive and learn to love us is beyond me.Quote I don’t think we want to be loved. I think if we stop fucking with people they will stop fucking with us. I don’t know how to make it any simpler then that. Look at how Israel tried to pacify ArafatQuote Israel is the inventor of the pre-emptive strike, They are known to not follow any rules, they bulldozer houses no questions asked. They have managed to create so much hate that it has become impossible to remove the resentment that the average Palestinian citizen has for the Israeli Gov.. I hope we will not follow the same lead as them. When will people finally understand that these people want to kill you and your family because you aren't a Muslim?Quote Wow I didn’t know that about my religion. A little paranoid maybe too much coffee? We have killed much more of THEM as you like to put it then they have of us. We always seem to kill more people were good at it. Practice makes perfect When will people understand the terrorists are brainwashing the young Muslims in the Mosques to hate Western Civilization?Quote Do you mean kind of like this statement you made. When will people finally understand that these people want to kill you and your family because you aren't a Muslim? When will people finally understand this is a Cultural and Religious War?Quote Was it not G. W. Bush who said something about listening to his God? Funny how blind we can be. Good to see both sides even if you do assume your side is perfect. How many more terrorist attacks should we have suffered until we did something?Quote To stop something we must first know what caused it. It is much to simple to say there nuts. It is all a matter of perspective. I don’t think any one had a problem with us going after OBL. But we didn’t stop there, and seems like we will even go further. I hope not. Does anyone honestly believe that just by going into Afghanistan, that the terrorist attacks would have ended? Quote I wish it were that easy. We are doing what we always did. We do what’s best for us and only us no matter what the consequences are to the world community. That’s why we are hated not because we have MTV. We need to respect people to be respected. Tell us what we should have done?Quote 1st. Don’t think because someone is different then you it means they are wrong and your right 2nd Actually tries to find a reason and do some research other then saying they’re all crazy. 3rd. Remember that all people from all different religions, color, and ethnic background want basically the same things. They want to be safe, happy, chance to grow, and the same for their kids. 4th if our government actually cared more about human life (no matter what the nationality) we would not be hated so much that people are willing to kill them self’s just to get at us.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skydyvr 0 #29 January 17, 2005 QuoteIsrael is the inventor of the pre-emptive strike, They are known to not follow any rules . . . Whar rules do the Palestinians follow, minimum bus passenger density guidlines? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Darius11 12 #30 January 17, 2005 They follow the retaliation rule of the weaker side. They will not follow conventional war tactics because it is obvious they will lose if they do so. Kind of the same way we invented guerilla warfare. We knew we could not face the British in what was then known as the honorable way to fight. We did it any way we could.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites crwslut 0 #31 January 17, 2005 QuoteWell, the soldiers were stupid enough to be taking pictures and video footage of their own actions... What was really damaging to Graner's chances in his trial was footage shown to the jury of him smiling, whistling, laughing, etc, while he's doing the torture... What kind of sick-minded bastard does that? If I have to torture somebody (ie follow orders) I'm sure as hell not going to look like I'm enjoying it. Sure, there's a war going on and bad things happen (Graner's own words), but if you're going to do things against the Geneva Convention, at least make sure you're not documenting it for the whole world to see! The LAPD sure learned this lesson. As a cross point, how do you think the Homeland Security directives to aggressively get the job done will be interpreted by the various US law enforcement agencies in the application of new laws against people here in the US? We definitely should have been more careful in what we wished for.What could possibly go wrong? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skydyvr 0 #32 January 17, 2005 QuoteThey follow the retaliation rule of the weaker side. They will not follow conventional war tactics because it is obvious they will lose if they do so. Kind of the same way we invented guerilla warfare. We knew we could not face the British in what was then known as the honorable way to fight. We did it any way we could. If, as you say, the Israeli troops don't follow any rules, then you've made an invalid comparison between them and the British. Has a nice ring to it though. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Darius11 12 #33 January 17, 2005 My point was this. When a weaker group is faced with a stronger group they will use any means to fight back no matter how it might be viewed by others. Even we are not exempt from that kind of behavior. Hopefully that will explain what my point was.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites gravityizsexy 0 #34 January 17, 2005 If his actions stemmed from his personal views and values of life or what have you, he should be held fully accountable and I agree (if this is the case) he did not get what he fully deserved. Not only was he acting in a unprofessional manner, but he encouraged his derranged perspective among innocent subordinates. ALSO!!! If he did hold the commanding word over the unit in the prison (If he was the HH over there) then your fucking right he should be held accountable. with extreme prejudice. Furthermore, If these interrogation techniques had been performed in a professional, militant manner (and yes, theatrics are a part of interrogation) with an objective (getting intel from the prisoners) then and only then could I understand. The media's involvement and interpretation of this case brings nothing but contradiction to the table which makes this whole thing hard for me to swallow. "'Someday is not a day in my week'" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tantalum 0 #35 January 17, 2005 What does it matter as to the quality of arguments as to who and where I am? If I am a concerned on-looker posting from Riyadh? What if I am a Muslim, Hindu, non-Christian? Even worse, what if I am a Democrat? What does it matter if I am a skydiver or not? (Truthfully, I have been in the sport long enough not having to define myself any longer by jumping out of airplanes.) And yes, if some times the negative of American politics seems overwhelming: all 1,300+ bodies of it. Sent to their graves needlessly and prematurely... QuoteYou are who? You are where? You are a skydiver? Number of skydives? (Not really important) Read all of your posts! You do not ever express a positive side on any subject. Do you only believe in the negative and never the positive, or do you just want to be on the the other side of every issue? Skies blue to you, only if you are a real skydiver. Lee Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tantalum 0 #36 January 17, 2005 This is an absolutely crucial insight: We are becoming what we set out to fight for! Human rights abuse, torture, indiscriminate killings, you name it....the name is US. Quote [...] So the US can and should do what ever it pleases and behave like the worst human rights offenders? or at least if it is against muslims? So aren't you becoming what you supposedly are fighting against? Quite disturbing stuff IMHO. [...] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #37 January 18, 2005 QuoteQuoteHow anyone can sit there and so blindly believe that if we just don't upset terrorist they will become passive and learn to love us is beyond me. Look at how Israel tried to pacify Arafat. He was asked what it would take to end the terrorists attacks and then walked away from the negotiations when it became clear he was going to get 95% of what he asked for. When will people finally understand that these people want to kill you and your family because you aren't a Muslim? When will people understand the terrorists are brain-washing the young Muslims in the Mosques to hate Western Civilization? When will people finally understand this is a Cultural and Religious War? How many more dead Americans do you think we should have found acceptable? How many more terrorists attacks should we have suffered until we did something? Does anyone honestly believe that just by going into Afghanistan, that the terrorist attacks would have ended? Do you have any evidence that Iraq was doing any of this stuff prior to the invasion? If so, please would you post it. Iraq is nothing more than the battle ground. May not be fair to the Iraqi people, but that's the way it is. This is war, people die. People need to remove the blinders. Thank God it's going down in Iraq and not somewhere else. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,426 #38 January 18, 2005 > So prove to me that W issued those orders and it wasn't someone down the line . . . W's administration drafted several memos redefining torture and finding loopholes in the Geneva Conventions. One such memo, reported on Jun 7 in the WSJ, argued that the U.S. president could legally order the torture of detainees. Then lo and behold, detainees are tortured. It may not have been Bush that gave the order (indeed, it probably wasn't) but he certainly went to some effort to give it the green light. If you have a DZO who tells his instructors "it's OK if you don't train your students when we are busy" and a student goes in due to lack of training, can he argue "hey, I never explicitly TOLD anyone to not train students!" Would you consider him blameless? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AggieDave 6 #39 January 18, 2005 QuoteOne such memo, reported on Jun 7 in the WSJ, argued that the U.S. president could legally order the torture of detainees. You got a link handy?--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites crozby 0 #40 January 18, 2005 QuoteIraq is nothing more than the battle ground. May not be fair to the Iraqi people, but that's the way it is. I though we were there to liberate the Iraqis from the evil clutches of Saddam Hussein, so it certainly isn't fair to them if that is not what we are doing there. QuoteThank God it's going down in Iraq and not somewhere else. I'm guessing from that statement you believe that if the US wasn't fighting the insurgents in Iraq you would be fighting them in the USA, is that right? If so, why do you suppose they aren't taking advantage of the fact that so much US attention and so many US troops are over there, to slip a few suicide bombers over the Canadian/Mexican borders and blow up some shopping precincts? Why hasn't that happened, and why has no one even been caught trying (and not subsequently released due to lack of evidence)? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,426 #41 January 18, 2005 >You got a link handy? It's available online: http://online.wsj.com/public/us However, the WSJ is a pay site, so I'll excerpt it here: ------------------------------------------------------- Published on Monday, June 7, 2004 by the Wall Street Journal Pentagon Report Set Framework For Use of Torture Security or Legal Factors Could Trump Restrictions, Memo to Rumsfeld Argued by Jess Bravin Bush administration lawyers contended last year that the president wasn't bound by laws prohibiting torture and that government agents who might torture prisoners at his direction couldn't be prosecuted by the Justice Department. The advice was part of a classified report on interrogation methods prepared for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after commanders at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, complained in late 2002 that with conventional methods they weren't getting enough information from prisoners. Critics who have seen the draft report said it undercuts the administration's claims that it recognized a duty to treat prisoners humanely. The "claim that the president's commander-in-chief power includes the authority to use torture should be unheard of in this day and age," said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a New York advocacy group that has filed lawsuits against U.S. detention policies. "Can one imagine the reaction if those on trial for atrocities in the former Yugoslavia had tried this defense?" The report outlined U.S. laws and international treaties forbidding torture, and why those restrictions might be overcome by national-security considerations or legal technicalities. In a March 6, 2003, draft of the report reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, passages were deleted as was an attachment listing specific interrogation techniques and whether Mr. Rumsfeld himself or other officials must grant permission before they could be used. The complete draft document was classified "secret" by Mr. Rumsfeld and scheduled for declassification in 2013. The draft report, which exceeds 100 pages, deals with a range of legal issues related to interrogations, offering definitions of the degree of pain or psychological manipulation that could be considered lawful. But at its core is an exceptional argument that because nothing is more important than "obtaining intelligence vital to the protection of untold thousands of American citizens," normal strictures on torture might not apply. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AggieDave 6 #42 January 18, 2005 Thanks for posting that...I knew that WSJ was a pay site and didn't want to pay for it.All that says that is he can order unusual treatment in a specific circumstance for national security, atleast that's how I read it. (Which is scary enough). It still doesn't prove W said "yall down there start kicking some heads." --"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,426 #43 January 18, 2005 >It still doesn't prove W said "yall down there start kicking some heads." Well, right. What he said (per the report) was "I want some answers, and kicking heads/drowning/electrocuting people to get those answers is OK." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AggieDave 6 #44 January 18, 2005 So we're basically splitting hairs...since he did the presidental thing and didn't say "do it, do it now, do it this way" someone else down the chain did. Hadn't seen that report or heard about it, thanks for posting it.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skydyvr 0 #45 January 18, 2005 QuoteMy point was this. When a weaker group is faced with a stronger group they will use any means to fight back no matter how it might be viewed by others. Even we are not exempt from that kind of behavior. Hopefully that will explain what my point was. I get your point -- it just seemed a little strange that you listed a lack of "rule following" in your argument against the Israelis earlier, as though this wasn't something both sides have a problem with. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites crozby 0 #46 January 18, 2005 QuoteBut at its core is an exceptional argument that because nothing is more important than "obtaining intelligence vital to the protection of untold thousands of American citizens," normal strictures on torture might not apply. Here's the problem isn't it. What if a US city got nuked because the terrorist in custody who knew where the bomb was planted wouldn't tell. If the government said "We did all we were allowed to do, i.e. we played loud music, made him dance around in his underpants for hours on end and kept him up really late, sometimes till 4 in the morning" there would be total outrage that they hadn't tried a bit harder wouldn't there? (edited pants to undies!) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,426 #47 January 18, 2005 >there would be total outrage that they hadn't tried a bit harder wouldn't there? Uh, we had a presidential briefing titled "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN US" a month before 9/11 that went unheeded - and there was a distinct lack of total outrage from the Bush supporters. Indeed, they made up all sorts of excuses how no one could have known that that memo meant that Bin Laden might strike the US. If Bush either tortures or doesn't torture someone and a disaster happens, the republicans will support him while blaming the democrats for the disaster. The democrats will do the opposite. And if we're going to do that anyway, why not do that and keep the constitution intact at the same time? Some of us believe it is worth defending. >What if a US city got nuked because the terrorist in custody who >knew where the bomb was planted wouldn't tell. And there's that problem. Can you know that a 13 year old girl _doesn't_ know something about where nuclear weapons are hidden? Of course not - you can't prove a negative like that. If you go by the "millions of americans can die!" thing you can always muster up some sort of justification to torture her. And if you can torture a 13 year old girl on that basis, you can do anything to anyone. That's Hussein's way, not ours. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AggieDave 6 #48 January 18, 2005 QuoteUh, we had a presidential briefing titled "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN US" a month before 9/11 that went unheeded The problem is like the boy who cried wolf. Since the mid 1980s the US intelligence organizations have known about many threats against the US via terrorist organizations. People "in the know" have been preaching to the government and the US about it since then as well. The US didn't take action due to a few factors. Firstly, the cost, Clinton didn't help with the severe cutbacks to the funding either, but that's a whole different story for a different thread...anyways, secondly how viable the threat was. Since every threat had been evaluated and nothing had happened, how serious were people taking the threat? Well, the intelligence agencies were, but what about the rest of the government. Everytime an agency "cried wolf" if the government poured its power and money into tracking it down to the fullest, our economy would have been much like Russia's 15 years ago. Bill, its like someone who's a rigger coming to you every day saying that your parachute may not open. Sure it may not, but would you every single day unpack your main and reserve, inspect it and take a few hours packing it all back up or would you simply go skydive? You might check it the first few times, then after 10 years of the rigger coming to you every day, you might not spend your time and energy in investigating it. Eventually it might just not open and you'll burn in. At that point the rigger will state, "see, I told him it wasn't going to open and he did NOTHING." Bill, I know you're an intelligent man, if you honestly believe what you're saying I'd be very surprised. I know you follow international politics better then that and have known for yourself that the US has been in harms way since Reagan was in office. You also know that the US has been too proud, thinking it was never going to get close to home (hell, Hitler couldn't do it, right?) and it would take a serious wakeup call for the US to ever start paying attention to global terrorism.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #49 January 18, 2005 QuoteQuoteIraq is nothing more than the battle ground. May not be fair to the Iraqi people, but that's the way it is. QuoteI though we were there to liberate the Iraqis from the evil clutches of Saddam Hussein, so it certainly isn't fair to them if that is not what we are doing there. There are and were a mutitude of reasons for going into Iraq. QuoteThank God it's going down in Iraq and not somewhere else. QuoteI'm guessing from that statement you believe that if the US wasn't fighting the insurgents in Iraq you would be fighting them in the USA, is that right? If thats what I meant, then that's what I would have said. I don't know where that "somewhere else" would be. Not fighting them in Iraq would have given the terrorists the ability to choose the battlefield. Would you have been happy if they had chosen Europe? Or maybe Pakistan, with it's nuclear arsenal? QuoteIf so, why do you suppose they aren't taking advantage of the fact that so much US attention and so many US troops are over there, to slip a few suicide bombers over the Canadian/Mexican borders and blow up some shopping precincts? Why hasn't that happened, and why has no one even been caught trying (and not subsequently released due to lack of evidence)? How do you know we haven't caught them trying to sneak in? How do you know we haven't foiled attacks? Do you think everything that happens in the world end up on the front page of the NY Times? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,426 #50 January 18, 2005 >The problem is like the boy who cried wolf. Oh, I agree. I was answering a poster who thought that people would crucify a president who didn't torture a suspect if it resulted in a bombing. People didn't crucify a president who had a much clearer warning of impending disaster, so I think his point is moot. >Firstly, the cost, Clinton didn't help . . . (obligatory Clinton slam is now out of the way . . .) >Bill, its like someone who's a rigger coming to you every day saying >that your parachute may not open. Sure it may not, but would you >every single day unpack your main and reserve, inspect it and take a >few hours packing it all back up or would you simply go skydive? Except the message didn't say "someone may attack." It said "Bin Laden may attack the US" and it listed the use of commercial airlines to target buildings. It's as if your rigger came to you and said "your left riser is worn out and may break." If your rigger told you that, what would you do? Nothing? I have a feeling you'd at least take a closer look at that left riser. Or you could just jump and 99 times out of 100 you'd probably be fine. You probably wouldn't even get any grief for it. But if that riser did break - well, you were warned. >Bill, I know you're an intelligent man, if you honestly believe what > you're saying I'd be very surprised. What do you think I'm saying? Was Bush criminally negligent in ignoring that warning? No. Might he have done a better job after having been warned about it? Yes. A smart man will learn from that experience and start taking intelligence more seriously. A fool will never admit that there was anything else that could have been done. As I've noted before, I commend Bush for coming very close to admitting to two mistakes concerning the war in Iraq. I hope that trend continues, and that next time he gets a briefing that is entitled something like "Al-Zarqaui plans to strike US embassy in Saudi Arabia" he at least makes a few phone calls. I have a feeling he will. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
skydyvr 0 #29 January 17, 2005 QuoteIsrael is the inventor of the pre-emptive strike, They are known to not follow any rules . . . Whar rules do the Palestinians follow, minimum bus passenger density guidlines? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #30 January 17, 2005 They follow the retaliation rule of the weaker side. They will not follow conventional war tactics because it is obvious they will lose if they do so. Kind of the same way we invented guerilla warfare. We knew we could not face the British in what was then known as the honorable way to fight. We did it any way we could.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwslut 0 #31 January 17, 2005 QuoteWell, the soldiers were stupid enough to be taking pictures and video footage of their own actions... What was really damaging to Graner's chances in his trial was footage shown to the jury of him smiling, whistling, laughing, etc, while he's doing the torture... What kind of sick-minded bastard does that? If I have to torture somebody (ie follow orders) I'm sure as hell not going to look like I'm enjoying it. Sure, there's a war going on and bad things happen (Graner's own words), but if you're going to do things against the Geneva Convention, at least make sure you're not documenting it for the whole world to see! The LAPD sure learned this lesson. As a cross point, how do you think the Homeland Security directives to aggressively get the job done will be interpreted by the various US law enforcement agencies in the application of new laws against people here in the US? We definitely should have been more careful in what we wished for.What could possibly go wrong? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #32 January 17, 2005 QuoteThey follow the retaliation rule of the weaker side. They will not follow conventional war tactics because it is obvious they will lose if they do so. Kind of the same way we invented guerilla warfare. We knew we could not face the British in what was then known as the honorable way to fight. We did it any way we could. If, as you say, the Israeli troops don't follow any rules, then you've made an invalid comparison between them and the British. Has a nice ring to it though. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #33 January 17, 2005 My point was this. When a weaker group is faced with a stronger group they will use any means to fight back no matter how it might be viewed by others. Even we are not exempt from that kind of behavior. Hopefully that will explain what my point was.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gravityizsexy 0 #34 January 17, 2005 If his actions stemmed from his personal views and values of life or what have you, he should be held fully accountable and I agree (if this is the case) he did not get what he fully deserved. Not only was he acting in a unprofessional manner, but he encouraged his derranged perspective among innocent subordinates. ALSO!!! If he did hold the commanding word over the unit in the prison (If he was the HH over there) then your fucking right he should be held accountable. with extreme prejudice. Furthermore, If these interrogation techniques had been performed in a professional, militant manner (and yes, theatrics are a part of interrogation) with an objective (getting intel from the prisoners) then and only then could I understand. The media's involvement and interpretation of this case brings nothing but contradiction to the table which makes this whole thing hard for me to swallow. "'Someday is not a day in my week'" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tantalum 0 #35 January 17, 2005 What does it matter as to the quality of arguments as to who and where I am? If I am a concerned on-looker posting from Riyadh? What if I am a Muslim, Hindu, non-Christian? Even worse, what if I am a Democrat? What does it matter if I am a skydiver or not? (Truthfully, I have been in the sport long enough not having to define myself any longer by jumping out of airplanes.) And yes, if some times the negative of American politics seems overwhelming: all 1,300+ bodies of it. Sent to their graves needlessly and prematurely... QuoteYou are who? You are where? You are a skydiver? Number of skydives? (Not really important) Read all of your posts! You do not ever express a positive side on any subject. Do you only believe in the negative and never the positive, or do you just want to be on the the other side of every issue? Skies blue to you, only if you are a real skydiver. Lee Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tantalum 0 #36 January 17, 2005 This is an absolutely crucial insight: We are becoming what we set out to fight for! Human rights abuse, torture, indiscriminate killings, you name it....the name is US. Quote [...] So the US can and should do what ever it pleases and behave like the worst human rights offenders? or at least if it is against muslims? So aren't you becoming what you supposedly are fighting against? Quite disturbing stuff IMHO. [...] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #37 January 18, 2005 QuoteQuoteHow anyone can sit there and so blindly believe that if we just don't upset terrorist they will become passive and learn to love us is beyond me. Look at how Israel tried to pacify Arafat. He was asked what it would take to end the terrorists attacks and then walked away from the negotiations when it became clear he was going to get 95% of what he asked for. When will people finally understand that these people want to kill you and your family because you aren't a Muslim? When will people understand the terrorists are brain-washing the young Muslims in the Mosques to hate Western Civilization? When will people finally understand this is a Cultural and Religious War? How many more dead Americans do you think we should have found acceptable? How many more terrorists attacks should we have suffered until we did something? Does anyone honestly believe that just by going into Afghanistan, that the terrorist attacks would have ended? Do you have any evidence that Iraq was doing any of this stuff prior to the invasion? If so, please would you post it. Iraq is nothing more than the battle ground. May not be fair to the Iraqi people, but that's the way it is. This is war, people die. People need to remove the blinders. Thank God it's going down in Iraq and not somewhere else. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #38 January 18, 2005 > So prove to me that W issued those orders and it wasn't someone down the line . . . W's administration drafted several memos redefining torture and finding loopholes in the Geneva Conventions. One such memo, reported on Jun 7 in the WSJ, argued that the U.S. president could legally order the torture of detainees. Then lo and behold, detainees are tortured. It may not have been Bush that gave the order (indeed, it probably wasn't) but he certainly went to some effort to give it the green light. If you have a DZO who tells his instructors "it's OK if you don't train your students when we are busy" and a student goes in due to lack of training, can he argue "hey, I never explicitly TOLD anyone to not train students!" Would you consider him blameless? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #39 January 18, 2005 QuoteOne such memo, reported on Jun 7 in the WSJ, argued that the U.S. president could legally order the torture of detainees. You got a link handy?--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #40 January 18, 2005 QuoteIraq is nothing more than the battle ground. May not be fair to the Iraqi people, but that's the way it is. I though we were there to liberate the Iraqis from the evil clutches of Saddam Hussein, so it certainly isn't fair to them if that is not what we are doing there. QuoteThank God it's going down in Iraq and not somewhere else. I'm guessing from that statement you believe that if the US wasn't fighting the insurgents in Iraq you would be fighting them in the USA, is that right? If so, why do you suppose they aren't taking advantage of the fact that so much US attention and so many US troops are over there, to slip a few suicide bombers over the Canadian/Mexican borders and blow up some shopping precincts? Why hasn't that happened, and why has no one even been caught trying (and not subsequently released due to lack of evidence)? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #41 January 18, 2005 >You got a link handy? It's available online: http://online.wsj.com/public/us However, the WSJ is a pay site, so I'll excerpt it here: ------------------------------------------------------- Published on Monday, June 7, 2004 by the Wall Street Journal Pentagon Report Set Framework For Use of Torture Security or Legal Factors Could Trump Restrictions, Memo to Rumsfeld Argued by Jess Bravin Bush administration lawyers contended last year that the president wasn't bound by laws prohibiting torture and that government agents who might torture prisoners at his direction couldn't be prosecuted by the Justice Department. The advice was part of a classified report on interrogation methods prepared for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after commanders at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, complained in late 2002 that with conventional methods they weren't getting enough information from prisoners. Critics who have seen the draft report said it undercuts the administration's claims that it recognized a duty to treat prisoners humanely. The "claim that the president's commander-in-chief power includes the authority to use torture should be unheard of in this day and age," said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a New York advocacy group that has filed lawsuits against U.S. detention policies. "Can one imagine the reaction if those on trial for atrocities in the former Yugoslavia had tried this defense?" The report outlined U.S. laws and international treaties forbidding torture, and why those restrictions might be overcome by national-security considerations or legal technicalities. In a March 6, 2003, draft of the report reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, passages were deleted as was an attachment listing specific interrogation techniques and whether Mr. Rumsfeld himself or other officials must grant permission before they could be used. The complete draft document was classified "secret" by Mr. Rumsfeld and scheduled for declassification in 2013. The draft report, which exceeds 100 pages, deals with a range of legal issues related to interrogations, offering definitions of the degree of pain or psychological manipulation that could be considered lawful. But at its core is an exceptional argument that because nothing is more important than "obtaining intelligence vital to the protection of untold thousands of American citizens," normal strictures on torture might not apply. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #42 January 18, 2005 Thanks for posting that...I knew that WSJ was a pay site and didn't want to pay for it.All that says that is he can order unusual treatment in a specific circumstance for national security, atleast that's how I read it. (Which is scary enough). It still doesn't prove W said "yall down there start kicking some heads." --"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #43 January 18, 2005 >It still doesn't prove W said "yall down there start kicking some heads." Well, right. What he said (per the report) was "I want some answers, and kicking heads/drowning/electrocuting people to get those answers is OK." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #44 January 18, 2005 So we're basically splitting hairs...since he did the presidental thing and didn't say "do it, do it now, do it this way" someone else down the chain did. Hadn't seen that report or heard about it, thanks for posting it.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #45 January 18, 2005 QuoteMy point was this. When a weaker group is faced with a stronger group they will use any means to fight back no matter how it might be viewed by others. Even we are not exempt from that kind of behavior. Hopefully that will explain what my point was. I get your point -- it just seemed a little strange that you listed a lack of "rule following" in your argument against the Israelis earlier, as though this wasn't something both sides have a problem with. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #46 January 18, 2005 QuoteBut at its core is an exceptional argument that because nothing is more important than "obtaining intelligence vital to the protection of untold thousands of American citizens," normal strictures on torture might not apply. Here's the problem isn't it. What if a US city got nuked because the terrorist in custody who knew where the bomb was planted wouldn't tell. If the government said "We did all we were allowed to do, i.e. we played loud music, made him dance around in his underpants for hours on end and kept him up really late, sometimes till 4 in the morning" there would be total outrage that they hadn't tried a bit harder wouldn't there? (edited pants to undies!) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #47 January 18, 2005 >there would be total outrage that they hadn't tried a bit harder wouldn't there? Uh, we had a presidential briefing titled "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN US" a month before 9/11 that went unheeded - and there was a distinct lack of total outrage from the Bush supporters. Indeed, they made up all sorts of excuses how no one could have known that that memo meant that Bin Laden might strike the US. If Bush either tortures or doesn't torture someone and a disaster happens, the republicans will support him while blaming the democrats for the disaster. The democrats will do the opposite. And if we're going to do that anyway, why not do that and keep the constitution intact at the same time? Some of us believe it is worth defending. >What if a US city got nuked because the terrorist in custody who >knew where the bomb was planted wouldn't tell. And there's that problem. Can you know that a 13 year old girl _doesn't_ know something about where nuclear weapons are hidden? Of course not - you can't prove a negative like that. If you go by the "millions of americans can die!" thing you can always muster up some sort of justification to torture her. And if you can torture a 13 year old girl on that basis, you can do anything to anyone. That's Hussein's way, not ours. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #48 January 18, 2005 QuoteUh, we had a presidential briefing titled "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN US" a month before 9/11 that went unheeded The problem is like the boy who cried wolf. Since the mid 1980s the US intelligence organizations have known about many threats against the US via terrorist organizations. People "in the know" have been preaching to the government and the US about it since then as well. The US didn't take action due to a few factors. Firstly, the cost, Clinton didn't help with the severe cutbacks to the funding either, but that's a whole different story for a different thread...anyways, secondly how viable the threat was. Since every threat had been evaluated and nothing had happened, how serious were people taking the threat? Well, the intelligence agencies were, but what about the rest of the government. Everytime an agency "cried wolf" if the government poured its power and money into tracking it down to the fullest, our economy would have been much like Russia's 15 years ago. Bill, its like someone who's a rigger coming to you every day saying that your parachute may not open. Sure it may not, but would you every single day unpack your main and reserve, inspect it and take a few hours packing it all back up or would you simply go skydive? You might check it the first few times, then after 10 years of the rigger coming to you every day, you might not spend your time and energy in investigating it. Eventually it might just not open and you'll burn in. At that point the rigger will state, "see, I told him it wasn't going to open and he did NOTHING." Bill, I know you're an intelligent man, if you honestly believe what you're saying I'd be very surprised. I know you follow international politics better then that and have known for yourself that the US has been in harms way since Reagan was in office. You also know that the US has been too proud, thinking it was never going to get close to home (hell, Hitler couldn't do it, right?) and it would take a serious wakeup call for the US to ever start paying attention to global terrorism.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #49 January 18, 2005 QuoteQuoteIraq is nothing more than the battle ground. May not be fair to the Iraqi people, but that's the way it is. QuoteI though we were there to liberate the Iraqis from the evil clutches of Saddam Hussein, so it certainly isn't fair to them if that is not what we are doing there. There are and were a mutitude of reasons for going into Iraq. QuoteThank God it's going down in Iraq and not somewhere else. QuoteI'm guessing from that statement you believe that if the US wasn't fighting the insurgents in Iraq you would be fighting them in the USA, is that right? If thats what I meant, then that's what I would have said. I don't know where that "somewhere else" would be. Not fighting them in Iraq would have given the terrorists the ability to choose the battlefield. Would you have been happy if they had chosen Europe? Or maybe Pakistan, with it's nuclear arsenal? QuoteIf so, why do you suppose they aren't taking advantage of the fact that so much US attention and so many US troops are over there, to slip a few suicide bombers over the Canadian/Mexican borders and blow up some shopping precincts? Why hasn't that happened, and why has no one even been caught trying (and not subsequently released due to lack of evidence)? How do you know we haven't caught them trying to sneak in? How do you know we haven't foiled attacks? Do you think everything that happens in the world end up on the front page of the NY Times? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,426 #50 January 18, 2005 >The problem is like the boy who cried wolf. Oh, I agree. I was answering a poster who thought that people would crucify a president who didn't torture a suspect if it resulted in a bombing. People didn't crucify a president who had a much clearer warning of impending disaster, so I think his point is moot. >Firstly, the cost, Clinton didn't help . . . (obligatory Clinton slam is now out of the way . . .) >Bill, its like someone who's a rigger coming to you every day saying >that your parachute may not open. Sure it may not, but would you >every single day unpack your main and reserve, inspect it and take a >few hours packing it all back up or would you simply go skydive? Except the message didn't say "someone may attack." It said "Bin Laden may attack the US" and it listed the use of commercial airlines to target buildings. It's as if your rigger came to you and said "your left riser is worn out and may break." If your rigger told you that, what would you do? Nothing? I have a feeling you'd at least take a closer look at that left riser. Or you could just jump and 99 times out of 100 you'd probably be fine. You probably wouldn't even get any grief for it. But if that riser did break - well, you were warned. >Bill, I know you're an intelligent man, if you honestly believe what > you're saying I'd be very surprised. What do you think I'm saying? Was Bush criminally negligent in ignoring that warning? No. Might he have done a better job after having been warned about it? Yes. A smart man will learn from that experience and start taking intelligence more seriously. A fool will never admit that there was anything else that could have been done. As I've noted before, I commend Bush for coming very close to admitting to two mistakes concerning the war in Iraq. I hope that trend continues, and that next time he gets a briefing that is entitled something like "Al-Zarqaui plans to strike US embassy in Saudi Arabia" he at least makes a few phone calls. I have a feeling he will. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
billvon 2,426 #50 January 18, 2005 >The problem is like the boy who cried wolf. Oh, I agree. I was answering a poster who thought that people would crucify a president who didn't torture a suspect if it resulted in a bombing. People didn't crucify a president who had a much clearer warning of impending disaster, so I think his point is moot. >Firstly, the cost, Clinton didn't help . . . (obligatory Clinton slam is now out of the way . . .) >Bill, its like someone who's a rigger coming to you every day saying >that your parachute may not open. Sure it may not, but would you >every single day unpack your main and reserve, inspect it and take a >few hours packing it all back up or would you simply go skydive? Except the message didn't say "someone may attack." It said "Bin Laden may attack the US" and it listed the use of commercial airlines to target buildings. It's as if your rigger came to you and said "your left riser is worn out and may break." If your rigger told you that, what would you do? Nothing? I have a feeling you'd at least take a closer look at that left riser. Or you could just jump and 99 times out of 100 you'd probably be fine. You probably wouldn't even get any grief for it. But if that riser did break - well, you were warned. >Bill, I know you're an intelligent man, if you honestly believe what > you're saying I'd be very surprised. What do you think I'm saying? Was Bush criminally negligent in ignoring that warning? No. Might he have done a better job after having been warned about it? Yes. A smart man will learn from that experience and start taking intelligence more seriously. A fool will never admit that there was anything else that could have been done. As I've noted before, I commend Bush for coming very close to admitting to two mistakes concerning the war in Iraq. I hope that trend continues, and that next time he gets a briefing that is entitled something like "Al-Zarqaui plans to strike US embassy in Saudi Arabia" he at least makes a few phone calls. I have a feeling he will. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
