U.S. outsourced torture

[Lobotomy Boy]

I understand that, Lone Gunman, and I agree with you completely. I was just trying to point out the emotions that are driving some of the (more-or-less) rational people who are advocating institutionalized torture while at the same time pointing out the twisted, vindictive nature of such emotions. Maybe I have too many levels of irony going here. When that happens, sometimes a person doesn't even know what he's talking about himself.

 

[Bigjake]

I'm pretty sure i'm not a sociopath....

Who knows, I'm not planning on profesional torture as a career path, so I can't say. Within the set of circumstances i gave you, I'm pretty sure i wouldn't be bothered.

If our forces catch a guy in the act of making or placing IED's, or anything along them lines, why not pick his brain a little? I think the biggest reason that this doesn't bother me is all the fuss that was made over Abu Graibe(spelling??). the stuff those guards pulled is unexcusable and stupid, because it served no purpose. the stuff they pulled was NOT torture and any respect. The people that did that oughta have the book thrown at em'.

what bothers me now, is the mass media and all of the left saying some of the things you are (not meant as an insult). They don't want to see ANYTHING happen to terrorists when captured. our guys can't even hurt thier damned feelings without some lefty moonbat screeching torture.

I don't think you are at all on the badguys' side, with the left, one has to wonder who they consider the real enemy to be, radical islam or the bush admin.

do you follow me at all here?? I'm not advocating wholesale torture of ever single person we catch, just more looser interrogation criteria. more extreme cases, sky's the limit. I just think our guys should be able to have more options on the table.

 

[Bigjake]

if any of the above post clashes with or is redundant to the previous few posts, it's because i took like 30 min to type it between cooking dinner...

 

[Wllm. Legrand]

what bothers me now, is the mass media and all of the left saying some of the things you are (not meant as an insult). They don't want to see ANYTHING happen to terrorists when captured. our guys can't even hurt thier damned feelings without some lefty moonbat screeching torture.

I don't think you are at all on the badguys' side, with the left, one has to wonder who they consider the real enemy to be, radical islam or the bush admin.

do you follow me at all here?? I'm not advocating wholesale torture of ever single person we catch, just more looser interrogation criteria. more extreme cases, sky's the limit. I just think our guys should be able to have more options on the table.

You fellows crack me up.

"more options on the table"? Crap.

Let me tell you something. Having done some ..er...not so good things in the past I can tell you how it goes, that is, when you want to inflict pain and punishment on a stranger who you believe deserves it.

First, you have to look at that person as a "thing". He is not a human being. He is not worthy of any consideration whatsoever. If you hurt him, you do not care yourself about how much it hurts him, but rather if what you're doing may get YOU into trouble. Then you get a little scared because you think you may get caught because you may have gone a bit overboard.

I know because I have done it, something close to it. I'm not saying this was scene out or Reservoir Dogs, but it was something I rationalized at the time. And I did not even have the imprimatur of the State. With some higher up giving me orders, heck, with the right attitude, the right kind of fella could get INTO it.

Maybe you folks haven't been keeping up on the trial, just ended, here in Colorado for the guys accused of killing that Iraqi General. I understand about 180-200 have died "while in custody". Shucks, accidents happen.

But I forget...we're the "good guys".

 

[PCGS65]

by Wllm. Legrand, BTW, my son is a Marine so don't try and put me in the "hate America" or "hates the military" or even the BS "liberal" camp. My simple solution is to have the government follow the Bill of Rights and the rest of the U.S. Constitution. Since it chooses not to do that, my attitude is 'ef em . That is, the ones who take an oath upon taking office to preserve, protect, and defend the Consitution..and DON'T.

Also to protect and defend the united states.

by Wllm. Legrand, I do not fall into the "Isn't the world better off (or the U.S. people, for that matter) with Saddam ousted?" crowd. Rather, I believe he was the leader those people need...and deserve.

Sadam murdered and tortured his own people, and you say those people need and deserve him. Yet you adamantly denounce torture?

by Wllm. Legrand, I claim the FedGOD is terrorist? Yep. Big time. It's done internationally, but the local boys have done well, too. Waco, Ruby Ridge, Drug War, IRS, etc., etc.

Judge, Jury and Excecutioner, who is the god?

also by Wllm. Legrand, I don't care what U.S. soldiers feel.

Or anyone else from reading your posts.

by Camp David, Worse... you seem to deny that terrorists are the the ones committing the terror and claim the Federal Government is the terrorist! That's treason son! That is what I replied to. If you wish to amend your comments feel free. They are cited above for your reference. Think how some soldiers might feel if they were told they were the enemy? That is what you seemed to imply. If I misread or misunderstood your comments feel free to reply and correct the record.

CD, nothing to misunderstand. Everything is perfectly clear to me! Treason it is!!

 

[griz]

Quote:
by Wllm. Legrand, BTW, my son is a Marine so don't try and put me in the "hate America" or "hates the military" or even the BS "liberal" camp. My simple solution is to have the government follow the Bill of Rights and the rest of the U.S. Constitution. Since it chooses not to do that, my attitude is 'ef em . That is, the ones who take an oath upon taking office to preserve, protect, and defend the Consitution..and DON'T.


Also to protect and defend the united states.

I believe that is a common misconception. Many politicians believe the same thing. Please show me any oath of office in this country that says "to protect and defend the united states." Effectively you are contridicting yourself if you swear to uphold the constitution, then swear to bypass it if it doesn't suit you.

 

[PCGS65]

I believe that is a common misconception. Many politicians believe the same thing. Please show me any oath of office in this country that says "to protect and defend the united states." Effectively you are contridicting yourself if you swear to uphold the constitution, then swear to bypass it if it doesn't suit you.

Yes I do believe it's the presidents job as well as congress to protect and defend the U.S. After all what good would the constitution/bill of rights be without a country? Then some might say without the constitution/bill of rights we don't have a country? Lets just keep fighting among ourselves and keep this circle spinning forever. That way we all lose. Remember united we stand........oh never mind. Go a head and dice this one a million ways to sunday too.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I think many are confused about what the President has sworn to protect.

He has sworn to protect the Constitution.

He can't trash the Constitution to save Americans from terrorists.

I would rather a few hundred or even thousands of Americans die each year from terrorist attacks than to live in the US after the Constitution is abolished. Liberty is a naturally dangerous situation. There is no way for liberty and complete safety to co-exist.

 

[pax]

Y'know, I think it's really odd.

We declared War on Terrorism, but what we apparently meant was War on Terrorists.

Terrorism itself, we're willing to embrace -- as long as it saves American lives.

pax

 

[engineer151515]

Two of our greatest wartime Presidents, FDR and Lincoln, both took liberties with the Constitution. Both were criticized for their "unconstitutional" actions ( or in Lincoln's case, refered to as "extra-constititional measures").

(http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/hl834.cfm) - Lincoln performed a whole series of important acts by sheer assumption of presidential power. Lincoln, without congressional approval, called forth the militia to "suppress said combinations," which he ordered "to disperse and retire peacefully" to their homes. He increased the size of the Army and Navy, expended funds for the purchase of weapons, instituted a blockade--an act of war--and suspended the precious writ of habeas corpus, all without congressional approval.



FDR - I was thinking about interment of US/Japanese descent citizens.



History may not be so harsh on George Bush.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

What makes you think that those of us who oppose the actions of the Bush administration would support those of FDR? I can't speak for anyone else, but I think FDR's internment of Japanese Americans was wrong, just as I think Bush breaking the FISA laws is wrong.

I'm afraid I'd have to disagree with many of Lincoln's actions, too. If you take the morally deplorable issue of slavery out of the equation, the South had some valid complaints. That whole situation becomes multiple shades of gray because it is impossible to take slavery out of the equation.

Regardless of all this, multiple wrongs do not make one right.

 

[Brother in Arms]

Camp David wrote:
" ....you seem to deny that terrorists are the the ones committing the terror and claim the Federal Government is the terrorist! That's treason son!"

Perhaps you are the one who needs to return to school "son"

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court"

Article.III. Section.3. Clause:1

What Mr.Legrand said is most definitly not treasonous. Even if you don't agree with it! If people hold with the idea that disagreeing with your government is treason than we are all in peril. Disdaining what the government does, is a corner stone of the freedom of America. If you can't disagree with what your government without commiting treason than you are not free. There is a difference between loving your country and loving your government. I suggest you learn to separate the location from the institution.

I can't believe any free minded person would say wllm. Legrand is treasonous; those who think so should join the BATFE.

Brother in Arms

 

[Chris Rhines]

A comment on torture -

It's fairly well established that physical abuse is useless for gathering information. It's equally well established (read The Gulag Archepelego) that physical abuse is wonderful for getting the victim to admit to things he didn't do. Then he can be stuffed into a prison camp or executed without drawing too much flak from the vox populi.

Something to think on.

- Chris

 

[R.H. Lee]

We declared War on Terrorism, but what we apparently meant was War on Terrorists.

Terrorism itself, we're willing to embrace -- as long as it saves American lives.

C'mon pax, you know there is no moral equivalency between us and Islamic terrorists. I've yet to see documentation that we cut off people's heads with rusty knives while they squeal like pigs, or that we send our children out with bombs strapped to them to kill our enemies.

 

[pax]

Oh?

Read back through this thread. Plenty of people are willing to do just that to our enemies.

pax

 

[Chris Rhines]

C'mon pax, you know there is no moral equivalency between us and Islamic terrorists.

Judging strictly by non-combatant body count, the USG is worse.

- Chris

 

[griz]

Lets just keep fighting among ourselves and keep this circle spinning forever.

How about we simply agree that the OATH is to defend the constitution, not to ignore it?

 

[engineer151515]

What makes you think that those of us who oppose the actions of the Bush administration would support those of FDR? ....
I'm afraid I'd have to disagree with many of Lincoln's actions, too. .......

Regardless of all this, multiple wrongs do not make one right.

Agreed.

My point was Constitutional "latitudes" with regard to Presidential power go back to the 1860's and do not necessarially make you a villain in the eyes of History. It is truly the responsibility of the Congress and the Supreme Court to balance the power of the Presidency. Recent successes along those lines would be 1. Congressional pressure leading to the resignation of Nixon for attempting to cover up the Watergate burglary and 2. Impeachment by the House of Representatives of Clinton for lying under oath.

Such is our imperfect system. I still thank God for the privilege of living in this great country every day.

 

[MinScout]

When terrorists kill 3,000 Americans, some bad ???? is going to happen. Those killers stirred up a hornets nest when they attacked us and they deserve everything that's coming to them. I don't want to hear any more liberal nonsense about "human rights" for terrorists. Terrorists are not human, they are vermin and need to be treated as such.

 

[ceetee]

When terrorists kill 3,000 Americans, some bad ???? is going to happen. Those killers stirred up a hornets nest when they attacked us and they deserve everything that's coming to them. I don't want to hear any more liberal nonsense about "human rights" for terrorists. Terrorists are not human, they are vermin and need to be treated as such.

Many thousands of civilians have been killed in Iraq, because we chose that country to "fight terrorism". Were those civilians "vermin" too?

 

[pax]

^ ^ ^

RH Lee ~

See what I mean?

pax

 

[Wllm. Legrand]

Agreed.

My point was Constitutional "latitudes" with regard to Presidential power go back to the 1860's and do not necessarially make you a villain in the eyes of History.

I don't know about that. Considering that the American South took a degree of destruction equal to the destruction of the Soviet Union at the hands of the Nazis in WWII for the simple reason of ending an agreement by the same process by which it was entered into, and fulfulling the ideas enshrined in the Declaration of Indendence of determining their own means of governance, it seems to me that Lincoln, as opposed to your description as "one of our greatest presidents", got what was coming to him.

It would have saved millions of lives (those killed and their descendants) if some patriot would have done it four years earlier.

 

[MinScout]

Many thousands of civilians have been killed in Iraq, because we chose that country to "fight terrorism". Were those civilians "vermin" too?

Like I said, some bad ???? is going to happen when you attack a powerful country like ours to civilians and combatants alike. The Japs learned that in '45. Lesson: Don't attack our country!

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

Like I said, some bad ???? is going to happen when you attack a powerful country like ours to civilians and combatants alike. The Japs learned that in '45. Lesson: Don't attack our country!

I think I missed something here. When did Iraq attack our country?

 

[Art Eatman]

L.B., you know full well MinScout was referring to Al Qaida, and including Hussein as an ally...You might disagree with him, but don't work at being obtuse.

And, overall, this thread is a wonderful squabble, but I don't see much "discussion" or see anybody changing anybody's mind...

Get somewhere or I'm gonna lock it.

Art