…or at least a few minutes of it.
There was a nice little rant by Shepard Smith about torture starting at 3:55
“We are America, we don’t torture! And the moment that is not the case, I want off the train! This government is of, by, and for the people – that means it’s mine. That means – I’m not saying what is torture, and what is not torture, but I’m saying, whatever it is, you don’t do it for me! I want off the train when the government starts – I want off, next stop, now!”
Rants are nice.
Official apologies and reparations would be better, as would prosecuting your war criminals for their crimes.
Yeah, I don’t see how someone can call themselves conservative, holding individual rights as the ultimate truth, and agree with torture for the “greater good”.
I, at this point, really think cheney, bush, and the legal advisers that okayed this need to be tried.
Doing this stuff makes us no better than the people we’re fighting against.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Doing this stuff makes us no better than the people we’re fighting against.[/quote]
On the flip side, I think if two people are fighting the same war by different rules it gives one an advantage. Would you like the other team to have the advantage?
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Doing this stuff makes us no better than the people we’re fighting against.
On the flip side, I think if two people are fighting the same war by different rules it gives one an advantage. Would you like the other team to have the advantage?[/quote]
Well, first, if we have to go against everything we believe to win, is it worth it?
The other thing is that it isn’t necessarily an advantage. If we take the high road, international support is easier and insurgent recruiting is more difficult.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Doing this stuff makes us no better than the people we’re fighting against.
On the flip side, I think if two people are fighting the same war by different rules it gives one an advantage. [/quote]
What do you mean by “the same way”?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Doing this stuff makes us no better than the people we’re fighting against.
On the flip side, I think if two people are fighting the same war by different rules it gives one an advantage. Would you like the other team to have the advantage?
Well, first, if we have to go against everything we believe to win, is it worth it?[/quote]
Does the end justify the means? It’s a good question. I’m not even sure I can answer it.
On another note, I could argue that these people captured are not citizens of the U.S. and thus are not granted any of the rights we are given.
[/quote]
The other thing is that it isn’t necessarily an advantage. If we take the high road, international support is easier and insurgent recruiting is more difficult.[/quote]
Fair enough.
To be honest, I’m still not exactly sure how I feel about all of this. I do know that I don’t think it should have ever been released to the public.
[quote]lixy wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Doing this stuff makes us no better than the people we’re fighting against.
On the flip side, I think if two people are fighting the same war by different rules it gives one an advantage.
What do you mean by “the same way”?[/quote]
I didn’t say “the same way”.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Doing this stuff makes us no better than the people we’re fighting against.
On the flip side, I think if two people are fighting the same war by different rules it gives one an advantage. Would you like the other team to have the advantage?[/quote]
If there are no differences between you and “the other team”, why the hell are you fighting for?
[quote]pookie wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Doing this stuff makes us no better than the people we’re fighting against.
On the flip side, I think if two people are fighting the same war by different rules it gives one an advantage. Would you like the other team to have the advantage?
If there are no differences between you and “the other team”, why the hell are you fighting for?
[/quote]
I think there are more differences between the U.S. and the taliban other than how wars are fought.
They let 40 year old men marry 8 year old girls, for starters.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Doing this stuff makes us no better than the people we’re fighting against.
On the flip side, I think if two people are fighting the same war by different rules it gives one an advantage. Would you like the other team to have the advantage?
Well, first, if we have to go against everything we believe to win, is it worth it?
Does the end justify the means? It’s a good question. I’m not even sure I can answer it.
On another note, I could argue that these people captured are not citizens of the U.S. and thus are not granted any of the rights we are given.
The other thing is that it isn’t necessarily an advantage. If we take the high road, international support is easier and insurgent recruiting is more difficult.
Fair enough.
To be honest, I’m still not exactly sure how I feel about all of this. I do know that I don’t think it should have ever been released to the public.[/quote]
Actually, basic rights, like life, are guaranteed by our creator to all humans, according to founding fathers. To me these would extend to habeas corpus, cruel and unusual, est.
Citizenship would grant you the added US only rights, like voting, public services, est.
I just can no longer delude myself under the veil of ?struggling for freedom and human rights? while doing things like this.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
lixy wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Doing this stuff makes us no better than the people we’re fighting against.
On the flip side, I think if two people are fighting the same war by different rules it gives one an advantage.
What do you mean by “the same way”?
I didn’t say “the same way”.[/quote]
I misread the last letter. My bad.
But do you really think the folks tortured at Abu Ghraib were “fighting the same war” as the American army?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Doing this stuff makes us no better than the people we’re fighting against.
On the flip side, I think if two people are fighting the same war by different rules it gives one an advantage. Would you like the other team to have the advantage?
Well, first, if we have to go against everything we believe to win, is it worth it?
Does the end justify the means? It’s a good question. I’m not even sure I can answer it.
On another note, I could argue that these people captured are not citizens of the U.S. and thus are not granted any of the rights we are given.
The other thing is that it isn’t necessarily an advantage. If we take the high road, international support is easier and insurgent recruiting is more difficult.
Fair enough.
To be honest, I’m still not exactly sure how I feel about all of this. I do know that I don’t think it should have ever been released to the public.
Actually, basic rights, like life, are guaranteed by our creator to all humans, according to founding fathers. To me these would extend to habeas corpus, cruel and unusual, est.
Citizenship would grant you the added US only rights, like voting, public services, est.
I just can no longer delude myself under the veil of ?struggling for freedom and human rights? while doing things like this.
[/quote]
I could go into a pretty hateful rant about how these scumbags have already forfeited their basic rights when they flew planes into our buildings, but it would really be nothing but hateful propaganda.
Suffice to say you don’t believe the ends justify the means, while I’m still not sure.
[quote]lixy wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
lixy wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Doing this stuff makes us no better than the people we’re fighting against.
On the flip side, I think if two people are fighting the same war by different rules it gives one an advantage.
What do you mean by “the same way”?
I didn’t say “the same way”.
I misread the last letter. My bad.
But do you really think the folks tortured at Abu Ghraib were “fighting the same war” as the American army?[/quote]
I don’t know. I’d like to think so. I’d like to think no one got totured who wasn’t a horrible person to begin with. I’d like to thing those who were tortured were aiding our enemies in some way. But like I said, I don’t know.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
I could go into a pretty hateful rant about how these scumbags have already forfeited their basic rights when they flew planes into our buildings, but it would really be nothing but hateful propaganda.
Suffice to say you don’t believe the ends justify the means, while I’m still not sure.[/quote]
No, not exactly what I believe.
The truth is that I think the guys have the same basic protections we do.
If you think all the guys being held were even remotely connected to the trade towers you are grossly mislead.
The fact is, they should at least get a trial. Once they have a trial and get convicted, yeah, they forfeit most of their rights. Fuck’em.
However, there are admittedly innocents there. And if it’s so clear that the criminals are guilty then it should be an easy trial.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Doing this stuff makes us no better than the people we’re fighting against.
On the flip side, I think if two people are fighting the same war by different rules it gives one an advantage. Would you like the other team to have the advantage?
Well, first, if we have to go against everything we believe to win, is it worth it?
Does the end justify the means? It’s a good question. I’m not even sure I can answer it.
On another note, I could argue that these people captured are not citizens of the U.S. and thus are not granted any of the rights we are given.
[/quote]
You could, but you would be wrong.
The US constitution does not apply to US citizens but to the US federal government and by extension to state governments.
Since the US federal government is not allowed to torture it hardly matters where the person that is tortured comes from.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
I could go into a pretty hateful rant about how these scumbags have already forfeited their basic rights when they flew planes into our buildings, but it would really be nothing but hateful propaganda.
Suffice to say you don’t believe the ends justify the means, while I’m still not sure.
No, not exactly what I believe.
The truth is that I think the guys have the same basic protections we do.
If you think all the guys being held were even remotely connected to the trade towers you are grossly mislead.
The fact is, they should at least get a trial. Once they have a trial and get convicted, yeah, they forfeit most of their rights. Fuck’em.
However, there are admittedly innocents there. And if it’s so clear that the criminals are guilty then it should be an easy trial.[/quote]
Yeah, I don’t see anything I disagree with there.
I just can’t help but think they would not afford us a trial had we been captured.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Yeah, I don’t see how someone can call themselves conservative, holding individual rights as the ultimate truth, and agree with torture for the “greater good”.
[/quote]
It would be even more interesting how someone who calls himself a “Republican” does not even believe in a republic, in a nation of laws.
How else could I interpret it if now some people argue that it was a mistake that White House memoranda were publicized and that Bush and his gang should not be indicted?
If you kidnapped someone and “waternboarded” him more than 100 times in one month alone, you´d be Bubba´s new boy toy.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Yeah, I don’t see how someone can call themselves conservative, holding individual rights as the ultimate truth, and agree with torture for the “greater good”.
I, at this point, really think cheney, bush, and the legal advisers that okayed this need to be tried.
Doing this stuff makes us no better than the people we’re fighting against.[/quote]
What have you been smoking? I want some too . . .
Here’s where this “anti-torture” BS comes under the spotlight of reason. I can do it in three questions.
OK Q1- Do you believe it is right to kill someone who is trying to kill you?
Q2 - Do you believe it is right to kill someone who is trying to kill 3,000 people?
and finally Q3 - if it is right to kill people under those circumstances, why is it wrong to keep someone awake for 48 hours to prevent them from killing someone else?
No lasting harm has ever been done to any of these detainees under the enhanced interrogation techniques used by the US. They were developed for specifically this purpose.
REAL torture involves real harm - psychologically, emotionally and physically- ie, broken minds, broken bones, lacerations, burnings, beatings, etc.
You whiny-a$$ liberals need to get over it.
The US doesn’t torture - we interrogate - learn the difference!!
To be clear we are talking about the same people that video tape decapitation to intimidate their enemies.
Now I don’t think torture is right we certainly can’t hold the enemies hands and whisper sweet nothings into their ears…especially when they are not treating our captured the same way.