• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CIA torture appears to have broken spy agency rule on human experimentation

CRUE CAB said:
Ah, so this is about America hate.
Click to expand...

It is possible to hate the sin and still love the sinner.

I'm gonna go out a limb here and say think I speak for DA60 when I say....I love my country, but I will not blindly forgive its sins, lest it becomes the very thing we claim to hate.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Ah, so this is about America hate.
Click to expand...

There is a certain assumption for many in foreign policy that everything is America' / The West's fault. Any conflict, any interpretation, has to be bent back to this assumed conclusion. It's actually a means of moral-self-affirmation. They aren't going to stop denigrating the object because doing so makes them feel good about themselves.
 
Last edited:
csbrown28 said:
It is possible to hate the sin and still love the sinner.

I'm gonna go out a limb here and say think I speak for DA60 when I say....I love my country, but I will not blindly forgive its sins, lest it becomes the very thing we claim to hate.
Click to expand...
Revenge is a sin, retribution is a sin. I suppose we should have just turned the other cheek on 9/12?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: CIA torture appears to have broken spy agency rule on human experimentation[/FONT][/COLOR]
Why arent those who are responsible for such inhumane, evil, and just outright criminal activities in jail? Why are they being given a free pass? This is freaking outrageous.
Click to expand...

Because they were neither inhumane nor criminal. In fact, they were carefully controlled by the Justice Department in order to make sure that they never risked becoming so.

And, more generally, because going after people who do dangerous work for you for doing it in the way that you told them to is not only wrong, but self-destructive.

matchlight said:
The United States is a signatory to the 1994 Convention Against Torture, and the provisions it agreed to were ratified by the Senate and codified in section 2340 of the U.S. Code. The United States has not authorized the torture of anyone. The enhanced interrogation techniques the Defense Dept. proposed to use in 2002, including waterboarding, were modeled on techniques the U.S. itself had used on thousands of servicemen as part of their survival training. The purpose was to give men most likely to be captured some experience of what they might expect if captured by certain enemies.

The Justice Dept.'s Office of Legal Counsel, which contains some of its best lawyers, thoroughly evaluated the proposed techniques and concluded that they did not violate any applicable U.S. laws, including section 2340. I have read their memos, and they are as good as legal research gets. If it can be shown that any U.S. official administered those interrogation techniques in a way that was not approved, that person should be disciplined. But so far, I have not seen any reliably documented instances of any acts that constituted torture under U.S. law.

Interrogation can be very painful and coercive, both physically and mentally, and yet not constitute torture under our laws. There has to be room for enough coercion to get results--the whole idea was the make murdering jihadist war criminals reveal what they knew, and with more attacks in the works, we had to find out that information fast. These mangy mutts got off damned easy. The only good reason not to have tried them before a military tribunal and executed them, after they had coughed up their secrets, was that once their pals found out they would be killed anyway they would probably not reveal anything.
Click to expand...

what this guy said.
 
cpwill said:
Because they were neither inhumane nor criminal. In fact, they were carefully controlled by the Justice Department in order to make sure that they never risked becoming so.
Click to expand...
:roll: Oh yea.... "Carefully controlled". So "carefully controlled" that why from the latest report it was found that integerators locked up a naked man to the floor and he later died of hypothermia. And dont forget one of our "sites was run by a junior officer with no relevant experience, and that this person had “issues” in his background that should have disqualified him from working for the CIA at all." had a detainee loose his eye while in custody, oh yea and we forced food up peoples asses without any medical need to do so, oh yea and we sexually assaulted many as well. The Most Gruesome Moments in the CIA

But hey, it was also found that "The CIA repeatedly provided inaccurate information to the Department of Justice (DOJ), impeding a proper legal analysis of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program.". So I guess there goes the whole "carefully controlled by the Justice Department" point.. And its also important to note that "CIA detainees were subjected to coercive interrogation techniques that had not been approved by the Department of Justice or had not been authorized by CIA Headquarters."... CIA interrogation report: The 20 key findings - BBC News

But not lets forget: "For five years as a researcher for Human Rights Watch and reporter, John Sifton helped investigate homicides resulting from the Bush administration's torture policy. His findings include:
• An estimated 100 detainees have died during interrogations, some who were clearly tortured to death.
• The Bush Justice Department failed to investigate and prosecute alleged murders even when the CIA inspector general referred a case.
• Sifton’s request for specific information on cases was rebuffed by the Bush Justice Department, though it was “familiar with the cases.”"
The Bush Administration Homicides - The Daily Beast


And, more generally, because going after people who do dangerous work for you for doing it in the way that you told them to is not only wrong, but self-destructive.
Click to expand...
Sorry. I dont hold this view. I dont hold the view that torturing people, sometime to death is "dangerous work" I believe its inhumane, evil, and all around cowardly. It serves no purpose.



what this guy said.[/QUOTE]
 
TheDemSocialist said:
:roll: Oh yea.... "Carefully controlled". So "carefully controlled" that why from the latest report it was found that integerators locked up a naked man to the floor and he later died of hypothermia. And dont forget one of our "sites was run by a junior officer with no relevant experience, and that this person had “issues” in his background that should have disqualified him from working for the CIA at all." had a detainee loose his eye while in custody, oh yea and we forced food up peoples asses without any medical need to do so, oh yea and we sexually assaulted many as well. The Most Gruesome Moments in the CIA

But hey, it was also found that "The CIA repeatedly provided inaccurate information to the Department of Justice (DOJ), impeding a proper legal analysis of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program.". So I guess there goes the whole "carefully controlled by the Justice Department" point.. And its also important to note that "CIA detainees were subjected to coercive interrogation techniques that had not been approved by the Department of Justice or had not been authorized by CIA Headquarters."... CIA interrogation report: The 20 key findings - BBC News

But not lets forget: "For five years as a researcher for Human Rights Watch and reporter, John Sifton helped investigate homicides resulting from the Bush administration's torture policy. His findings include:
• An estimated 100 detainees have died during interrogations, some who were clearly tortured to death.
• The Bush Justice Department failed to investigate and prosecute alleged murders even when the CIA inspector general referred a case.
• Sifton’s request for specific information on cases was rebuffed by the Bush Justice Department, though it was “familiar with the cases.”"
The Bush Administration Homicides - The Daily Beast
Click to expand...

Sure, we interrogated Abu Zubaydah after he was brought in, despite the fact that he was wounded. We didn't have the luxury of the time necessary to wait for him to feel hunky dory. Yup, a guy died (on accident) when his room got cold over night. Far from being an intended or acceptable result of an interrogation program that incident had strong repercussions inside the CIA, leading to a review that uncovered abuses in detention and interrogation procedures, and forcing the agency to change those procedures. Which is exactly what you would want to happen in that instance.

Other than the media outlet, this, I think, fairly well captures the report:

....The report will conclude that the CIA’s interrogation techniques never yielded any intelligence about imminent terrorist attacks. Investigators didn’t conclude that no information came from the program at all. Rather, the committee rejects the CIA’s contention that information came from the program that couldn’t have been obtained through other means....
Click to expand...

:lol: so, it doesn't count that the program actually helped stop attacks and save lives, because maybe they would have told us if we had first sent them on a 6 month all-expenses paid vacation to Tahiti. Oh, you don't think that would have worked? Well did you try it???.

:roll:


Sorry. I dont hold this view. I dont hold the view that torturing people, sometime to death is "dangerous work" I believe its inhumane, evil, and all around cowardly. It serves no purpose.
Click to expand...

:shrug: I have literally watched actual torture (much less ETOs) save lives, likely including my own. The idea that there is no trade-off between tough interrogation techniques and intelligence gathered may comfort those who don't want to recognize trade-offs for their policy proposals, but it does not match actual reality. The worst thing about torture is that it actually does work.
 
Henry David said:
Many americans and most of the government condone torture, as long as it's not to anybody they know.

The legal principles developed at Nuremberg are now considered quaint and out of style.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be nice if those so enamored with the illegality of torture also paid the same dedication when the govt go outside the lines of the Constitution?
 
csbrown28 said:
It is possible to hate the sin and still love the sinner.

I'm gonna go out a limb here and say think I speak for DA60 when I say....I love my country, but I will not blindly forgive its sins, lest it becomes the very thing we claim to hate.
Click to expand...

You nailed it...thanks.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Revenge is a sin, retribution is a sin. I suppose we should have just turned the other cheek on 9/12?
Click to expand...

Who said anything about turning the other cheek? I just think that your emotional need for revenge and retribution doesn't effectively deal with the problem.

So instead of just calling you out, here is my proposal...

Find a way to reduce or effectively eliminate our need for oil. We have spent $1.6 trillion on wars in the middle east. Could we have achieved the goal of energy independence for that much? I dunno, maybe, maybe not, but the result (spending $1.6 trillion on energy independence) imo would have done more to reduce the capabilities of groups and countries that we call our enemies (given that most fund their economies with oil and without our demand markets would fall dramatically) without ever putting an American life at risk and permanently screwing up the lives of those "lucky" enough to make it home.

All so you can have your revenge and retribution.

Now if you want to go to Afghanistan (or wherever) yourself and persecute your revenge....You have my unfettered support :usflag2:. You want to send my Nephew (a Marine) to do it for you, I don't think so :2no4:.
 
Last edited:
csbrown28 said:
Who said anything about turning the other cheek? I just think that your emotional need for revenge and retribution doesn't effectively deal with the problem.

So instead of just calling you out, here is my proposal...

Find a way to reduce or effectively eliminate our need for oil. We have spent $1.6 trillion on wars in the middle east. Could we have achieved the goal of energy independence for that much? I dunno, maybe, maybe not, but the result (spending $1.6 trillion on energy independence) imo would have done more to reduce the capabilities of groups and countries that we call our enemies (given that most fund their economies with oil and without our demand markets would fall dramatically) without ever putting an American life at risk and permanently screwing up the lives of those "lucky" enough to make it home.

All so you can have your revenge and retribution.

Now if you want to go to Afghanistan (or wherever) yourself and persecute your revenge....You have my unfettered support :usflag2:. You want to send my Nephew (a Marine) to do it for you, I don't think so :2no4:.
Click to expand...
Find me a recruiter that will take a 52 year old, and I will sign up today. And yes on 9/11 I was still too old. I have buried war dead in my family, during my life time. So don't play that one with me.
Also, we are getting less and less oil from the ME. Do your home work on that.
"MY" revenge is not what is called for either, its a national revenge. A national effort to eradicate what claims to what us dead.
Speaking of emotion. You have much more on the issue than I do.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Find me a recruiter that will take a 52 year old, and I will sign up today. And yes on 9/11 I was still too old. I have buried war dead in my family, during my life time. So don't play that one with me.
Also, we are getting less and less oil from the ME. Do your home work on that.
"MY" revenge is not what is called for either, its a national revenge. A national effort to eradicate what claims to what us dead.
Speaking of emotion. You have much more on the issue than I do.
Click to expand...

You dont need to sign up, just get on a plane fly over there and join or start an army of your own....Your call.

While I think it's tragic that you've buried war dead in your family and I offer my sincere condolences, I would ask, though I can anticipate your answer, was it worth it? I mean, unless we are talking about WWII or perhaps the Cold War, I can't think of a single war after WWII that was worth it's cost in American lives.

We're getting less oil from the ME? That is your response? So what? oil demand has continued to rise and when you add in the fact that it was ~$1.50 up to ~2005 and after it's averaged over ~$2.50, I'd say there is more money than ever flowing from the US to the ME. Add to that, the fact that we consume more than 3 times the next highest consumer (China) I'd say we're largely responsible for the wealth that flows into the hands of the people that "want us dead". We are funding the capability to make war against us.

"National Revenge"? That is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. Revenge is emotional response. There is nothing rational about that word. Nothing you've said is rational, it's all emotional despite accusing me of the same, though you didn't give an example.

How does "National Revenge" accomplish anything rational? Try to think more than 1 layer deep. If you eliminate today's threats, what about the next generation of children that grow up hating so much they are willing to strap bombs to themselves just to kill innocents? Your "revenge" doesn't deal with that problem, it only makes it worse, that is, unless you are prepared to commit genocide in order to accomplish your goals?
 
csbrown28 said:
You dont need to sign up, just get on a plane fly over there and join or start an army of your own....Your call.

While I think it's tragic that you've buried war dead in your family and I offer my sincere condolences, I would ask, though I can anticipate your answer, was it worth it? I mean, unless we are talking about WWII or perhaps the Cold War, I can't think of a single war after WWII that was worth it's cost in American lives.

We're getting less oil from the ME? That is your response? So what? oil demand has continued to rise and when you add in the fact that it was ~$1.50 up to ~2005 and after it's averaged over ~$2.50, I'd say there is more money than ever flowing from the US to the ME. Add to that, the fact that we consume more than 3 times the next highest consumer (China) I'd say we're largely responsible for the wealth that flows into the hands of the people that "want us dead". We are funding the capability to make war against us.

"National Revenge"? That is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. Revenge is emotional response. There is nothing rational about that word. Nothing you've said is rational, it's all emotional despite accusing me of the same, though you didn't give an example.

How does "National Revenge" accomplish anything rational? Try to think more than 1 layer deep. If you eliminate today's threats, what about the next generation of children that grow up hating so much they are willing to strap bombs to themselves just to kill innocents? Your "revenge" doesn't deal with that problem, it only makes it worse, that is, unless you are prepared to commit genocide in order to accomplish your goals?
Click to expand...

Not really a war junkie like those others. Which I guess is your que to call me a coward or sissy.
Was Vietnam worth it? Hmmm, his death was tragic and no. My cousin was worth more than all the hundreds of thousands of NVC killed. Damage to our family was immense.
Don't like national revenge? Well what did you call it on the day after when everyone was screaming for someones head.
 
csbrown28 said:
You dont need to sign up, just get on a plane fly over there and join or start an army of your own....Your call.
Click to expand...

While I think it's tragic that you've buried war dead in your family and I offer my sincere condolences, I would ask, though I can anticipate your answer, was it worth it?

I've deployed multiple times, and buried more than a few friends. I don't recall us ever mass-murdering civilians for the delight of doing so, a'la the accusation that we are becoming what we oppose.

I mean, unless we are talking about WWII or perhaps the Cold War, I can't think of a single war after WWII that was worth it's cost in American lives.
Click to expand...

Well, we haven't had a "war" after WWII, but if you are talking about military campaigns (which is a fair approximation), I would say that Bosnia, Somalia, Desert Storm, Korea, and a few others are "worth it".

The problem becomes that "worth it" is a measurement that has to take into account results - whether or not you won - and that is impossible to fully foretell (as are casualties) when you begin a campaign. In 2009/2010? I would have absolutely told you that Iraq was worth the sacrifices I'd been there for. Then we tossed it away. Is something that was worth it still worth it if you piss away the gains? Does that act retroactively? I'm not sure how you leverage that estimate in a manner that is useful for decision-making.

We're getting less oil from the ME? That is your response?
Click to expand...

And it's a good one. We are.

So what? oil demand has continued to rise and when you add in the fact that it was ~$1.50 up to ~2005 and after it's averaged over ~$2.50, I'd say there is more money than ever flowing from the US to the ME.
Click to expand...

Well that's an interesting claim - can you demonstrate it?

Add to that, the fact that we consume more than 3 times the next highest consumer (China)
Click to expand...

Awesome. Good for us.

I'd say we're largely responsible for the wealth that flows into the hands of the people that "want us dead". We are funding the capability to make war against us.
Click to expand...

See: Foreign Debt, China, US Treasury Holdings

National Revenge"? That is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. Revenge is emotional response. There is nothing rational about that word.
Click to expand...

Actually the revenge instinct evolved as a rational cost-benefit equation with prohibitive/warning functions. If you are perceived as potentially likely to respond to someone stealing from you by murdering them, then you will reduce the benefit to others of attempting to steal from you. Result: you don't get robbed.

It's interesting stuff

...What evolutionary purpose does the impulse for revenge serve?
It's got costs, but it does look like, from the best models we have, that individuals with a taste for punishing those who have harmed them could become a major part of a group. The way revenge seems to operate in our minds today really does have a functional ring to it.

The loudest way to exact revenge is to make a person's gains less profitable. You have reached into their accounting system and changed what they've gained from harming you.

The interesting thing is that the desire for revenge goes up if there are people who have watched you be mistreated, because in that case, the costs have gotten bigger. If you don't take revenge, there's a chance that people will learn that you are the type of person who will put up with mistreatment. That is the kind of phenomenon that you would expect if there is a functional logic underlying the system that produces revenge. This is a well-tuned system that's highly specific in what it cares about and the kinds of responses that it generates.

If it's so well tuned in humans, do we see this sort of behavior in other animals?
Absolutely. Imposing costs on individuals that have imposed costs on you is really common in nonhuman animals. We see it in birds. We see it in fish. It does actually seem to change them. It produces reformed behavior—the way it ought to if it's designed for deterrence. ...
Click to expand...
 
csbrown28 said:
How does "National Revenge" accomplish anything rational?
Click to expand...

In this case, if the action of "Launch a major terrorist attack in CONUS" results in "Everyone in your group and everyone allied with your group gets utterly obliterated and has to spend the next two decades in desperate hiding and fear of a random missile finding them at any time", then the potential benefits of "Launch a major terrorist attack in CONUS" are significantly reduced relative to the costs.


Try to think more than 1 layer deep. If you eliminate today's threats, what about the next generation of children that grow up hating so much they are willing to strap bombs to themselves just to kill innocents?
Click to expand...

Agreed that CT is not a holistic solution. But we are unwilling to absorb the costs of a holistic solution, and so that is the solution that (at current and for the forseeable future) we will use.

Your "revenge" doesn't deal with that problem, it only makes it worse,
Click to expand...

Depends.

...The KGB has adopted novel, brutal and apparently effective methods of dealing with terrorists who attack Soviet interests in the Middle East, an Israeli newspaper reported Monday.

The Jerusalem Post said the Soviet secret police last year secured the release of three kidnaped Soviet diplomats in Beirut by castrating a relative of a radical Lebanese Shia Muslim leader, sending him the severed organs and then shooting the relative in the head....

Parts of the man's body, the paper said, were then sent to the Hezbollah leader with a warning that he would lose other relatives in a similar fashion if the three remaining Soviet diplomats were not immediately released. They were quickly freed.

The newspaper quoted "observers in Jerusalem" as saying: "This is the way the Soviets operate. They do things--they don't talk. And this is the language Hezbollah understands."...​



Violence and power are languages that this part of the world understands and respects. You aren't going to get to the soft-lovey-feel-good parts unless you first establish that you are willing and capable of murdering everyone that chooses to oppose you.
 
cpwill said:
Sure, we interrogated Abu Zubaydah after he was brought in, despite the fact that he was wounded. We didn't have the luxury of the time necessary to wait for him to feel hunky dory.
Click to expand...
So.. What exactly is your point here? Somehow because he was injured that justifies torture? I mean he was treated, then transfered to black sites where he was tortured essentially non stop.

Yup, a guy died (on accident) when his room got cold over night. Far from being an intended or acceptable result of an interrogation program that incident had strong repercussions inside the CIA, leading to a review that uncovered abuses in detention and interrogation procedures, and forcing the agency to change those procedures. Which is exactly what you would want to happen in that instance.
Click to expand...
1.)Since he died on "accident" this is what? Ok? Continue with the policies?
2.)"It remains uncertain whether any intelligence officers have been punished as a result of the Afghan's death, raising questions about the CIA's accountability in the case. The CIA's then-station chief in Afghanistan was promoted after Rahman's death, and the officer who ran the prison went on to other assignments, including one overseas, several former intelligence officials said. The CIA declined to discuss the Salt Pit case and denied a Freedom of Information Act request submitted by the AP.... The CIA declined to discuss whether the two agency officers cited in the inspector general's report were punished... But when the case was put before Kyle D. Foggo, the CIA's third-ranking officer at the time, no formal administrative action was taken against the two men, said two former intelligence officials with knowledge of the case... "What you see across the board, there is no standard that is applied uniformly," said one former CIA officer, Charles Faddis, who recently published "Beyond Repair," a critical assessment of the agency." Salt Pit Death: Gul Rahman, CIA Prisoner, Died Of Hypothermia In Secret Afghanistan Prison


Im sure the CIA did a lot of harsh punishments form the inside. I mean promoting the CIA stations chief. I mean afterall we should trust the CIA, its not like they didnt lie to congress, Justice Department, and broke their own rules and regulations constantly.. :roll: In other words, nothing happened no one was actually punished. A slap on the wrist (maybe), and we will give out a hard worded press statement, but in reality jack **** happened.

Other than the media outlet, this, I think, fairly well captures the report:
:lol: so, it doesn't count that the program actually helped stop attacks and save lives, because maybe they would have told us if we had first sent them on a 6 month all-expenses paid vacation to Tahiti. Oh, you don't think that would have worked? Well did you try it???.

:roll:
Click to expand...
What you just quoted doesnt say what you think it says. Go over it one more time: "Rather, the committee rejects the CIA’s contention that information came from the program that couldn’t have been obtained through other means... The Senate Intelligence Committee reviewed 20 cited examples of intelligence “successes” that the CIA identified from the interrogation program and found that there was no relationship between a cited counterterrorism success and the techniques used... The CIA acknowledged that it never properly reviewed the effectiveness of these techniques"
--For gods sake the CIA claims that its an effective use to gather intelligence but they even acknowledge they dont even know the effectiveness! :lamo
But then again we can through study after study to also back up the conclusion that torture doesnt work. Maybe thats why the CIA didnt wanna study the effectiveness...
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: I have literally watched actual torture (much less ETOs) save lives, likely including my own. The idea that there is no trade-off between tough interrogation techniques and intelligence gathered may comfort those who don't want to recognize trade-offs for their policy proposals, but it does not match actual reality. The worst thing about torture is that it actually does work.
Click to expand...
1.)Its not "tough interrogation", its not "enhanced interrogation", its torture.
2.) "The scientific community has never established that coercive interrogation methods are an effective means of obtaining reliable intelligence information. In essence, there seems to be an unsubstantiated assumption that “compliance” carries the same connotation as “meaningful cooperation” (i.e., a source induced to provide accurate, relevant information of potential intelligence value)." http://fas.org/irp/dni/educing.pdf - In other words torture just gets people to say what you want to hear
3.)"Throughout that period, Soufan says he never felt the need for harsh interrogation methods. He argues that techniques like waterboarding don't work. "When they are in pain, people will say anything to get the pain to stop. Most of the time, they will lie, make up anything to make you stop hurting them," he says. "That means the information you're getting is useless." But his main objection to the techniques, Soufan says, is moral. To use violence against detainees, he says, "is [al-Qaeda's] way, not the American way." A Top Interrogator Who's Against Torture - TIME
4.)" Solid scientific evidence on how repeated and extreme stress and pain affect memory and executive functions (such as planning or forming intentions) suggests these techniques are unlikely to do anything other than the opposite of that intended by coercive or ‘enhanced’ interrogation." Torture Doesn’t Work, Neurobiologist Says | Harper's Magazine
5.)"Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear." FM 34-52 Chapter 1
6.)"Because a person being tortured loses the ability to distinguish between true and false memories, as a 2008 study showed, further pain and stress does not cause him to tell the truth, but to retreat further into a fog where he cannot tell true from false." Torture Doesn’t Work, Neurobiologist Says | Harper's Magazine
7.)"Yet the CIA had concluded before Sept. 11 that torture does not work. Richard Stolz, chief of the CIA’s clandestine service under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, testified to Congress: “Physical abuse or other degrading treatment was rejected not only because it is wrong, but because it has historically proven to be ineffective.” To quote from the agency’s own manuals, reproduced in the Senate report: “Inhumane physical or psychological techniques are counterproductive because they do not produce intelligence and will probably result in false answers.” The CIA Is Still Running Amok - Tim Weiner - POLITICO Magazine
 
CRUE CAB said:
Not really a war junkie like those others. Which I guess is your que to call me a coward or sissy.
Click to expand...

Nope, I'll take the high road, thx.

CRUE CAB said:
Was Vietnam worth it? Hmmm, his death was tragic and no. My cousin was worth more than all the hundreds of thousands of NVC killed. Damage to our family was immense.
Click to expand...

First sorry to hear about your cousin. Honestly when I think of the stories I was told about what my father endured it literally brings tears to my eyes. Though I doubt this will bring you any comfort, my father deployed to Vietnam and while he survived the man that returned from Vietnam was not my father. So says his mother and his wife (I was to young to remember). Vietnam didn't take his body, but it did take his life.

CRUE CAB said:
Don't like national revenge? Well what did you call it on the day after when everyone was screaming for someones head.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to imply that it didn't exist literally, but that it's purely an irrational and emotional response, i.e. unproductive to achieve any meaningful goals.
 
cpwill said:
I've deployed multiple times, and buried more than a few friends. I don't recall us ever mass-murdering civilians for the delight of doing so, a'la the accusation that we are becoming what we oppose.
Click to expand...

While your anecdotal experience is fascinating, do you think it represents the depth and breadth of American policy?

cpwill said:
[snip]...I would say that Bosnia, Somalia, Desert Storm, Korea, and a few others are "worth it".
Click to expand...

Korea and DS are what I was talking about. We can agree to disagree on their worth.

cpwill said:
And it's a good one. We are.

Well that's an interesting claim - can you demonstrate it?
Click to expand...

Now you're just distracting with minutia. Whether we are or aren't we are still by far the world's largest user of oil and none of your replies invalidate, though they do attempt to distract from my original, claim.

cpwill said:
Actually the revenge instinct evolved as a rational cost-benefit equation with prohibitive/warning functions. If you are perceived as potentially likely to respond to someone stealing from you by murdering them, then you will reduce the benefit to others of attempting to steal from you. Result: you don't get robbed.

It's interesting stuff
Click to expand...

Yes because robbery is an excellent analogy to war. What works on the personal level often fails at the group and national level.
 
csbrown28 said:
While your anecdotal experience is fascinating, do you think it represents the depth and breadth of American policy?
Click to expand...

You were the one who tried to make having a legitimate opinion on this one hinged in part on connection to the military.

I have a crap ton of buddies who are Marines, like me, and like your nephew. They want to go, and are, in fact, pissed off at the ones who get to go. The Peacetime Marine Corps sucks. MEU's suck.

This is the most common share recently among my Marine friends on Facebook:
11427243_395261330665280_5873126215473663308_n.jpg


Korea and DS are what I was talking about. We can agree to disagree on their worth.
Click to expand...

:shrug: okay.

Now you're just distracting with minutia.
Click to expand...

YOU are the one who made the claim. Can you back it up?

Whether we are or aren't we are still by far the world's largest user of oil and none of your replies invalidate, though they do attempt to distract from my original, claim.
Click to expand...

Your claim was that we needed to achieve oil independence and that we were sending more money than ever to the Middle East. The fact that we are importing less energy than before due to domestic production is relevant to the first claim, and your inability to demonstrate it's accuracy is relevant to the second.

Yes because robbery is an excellent analogy to war.
Click to expand...

Not much a fan of history, eh?

What works on the personal level often fails at the group and national level.
Click to expand...

Human psychology is human psychology - deterrence works in a rational framework.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Pro tip, deal with fact. 9/11 did change everything.
Click to expand...

Quite desecrating those who died that day by using their memory as your emotional political tool to try get what your way.
 
csbrown28 said:
While your anecdotal experience is fascinating, do you think it represents the depth and breadth of American policy?



Korea and DS are what I was talking about. We can agree to disagree on their worth.



Now you're just distracting with minutia. Whether we are or aren't we are still by far the world's largest user of oil and none of your replies invalidate, though they do attempt to distract from my original, claim.



Yes because robbery is an excellent analogy to war. What works on the personal level often fails at the group and national level.
Click to expand...

Yes, indeedy Mr. Brown. Now that you are fully aware that there are some very sick puppies feeding at the forum you must make them see the light, but not so bluntly that they suffer a catharctic psychological trauma by the possibility that all their fundamental ideals are mythical. Good luck with that and I am sincere.
 
matchlight said:
You've shown you know just enough about this subject to tick off a few words you think will sound meaningful--Constitution, Eighth Amendment, U.S. Code, CAT, Nurmberg (Shrub and Darth C. were just like the Nazis, dude!), the news--and nothing more. I am sure you have never so much as glanced at a single page of the legal memos you pretend to know are sophistry, and by calling them that you only expose your own. Realizing that you don't know enough about the subject to make even one specific objection to the findings of the Office of Legal Counsel (or those of the lawyers in other federal offices that agreed with them), you try to hide the fact you have no arguments by making a lame crack about my supposed gullibility. You'd do better to consider your own.

I challenge you, again, to make specific objections to the legal findings of the OLC regarding applicable U.S. laws against torture, as they concern the enhanced interrogation techniques U.S. officials used in 2002 and 2003 to make several jihadist war criminals reveal information about Al Qaeda and its plans to murder still more Americans. Show us how much more you know more about this subject than, say, the supremely naive John Yoo, who teaches at U.C. Berkeley Law School. Use reasoned legal arguments supported by facts, instead of just regurgitating cliche anti-American propaganda against this country. We've been hearing that from the Daily Kos, Media Matters, Mother Jones, and similar sources of leftist slop for the past dozen years.
Click to expand...

Some folks need to be led by the hand, kicking and screaming all the way.

Specifically the 8th prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. I suppose you will now say that torture is neither cruel nor unusual, Mr. Yoo.

I think that 18USC2441 is the encoded statute that criminalizes torture, our legislative response to CAT.
 
American said:
Wouldn't it be nice if those so enamored with the illegality of torture also paid the same dedication when the govt go outside the lines of the Constitution?
Click to expand...

I can speak only for myself, but I'm here to tell you that I am an equal opportunity critic. I object just as strenuously to the legalization of torture as I object to the nullification of the Fourth Amendment and Habeas Corpus by the government.

Is this a dream come true for you? Do you object equally to torture and illegitimate legislation? Or are you more selective?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom