[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I guess we have to torture EVERYONE.
If nothing happens, we can always pretend it was due to our hard work with the waterboard.[/quote]
wow. intelligent post.
[quote]Growing_Boy wrote:
Hey, I guess Hitler was just trying to protect the German people from evil Jews. He saved 25 million German lives by having just 9-12 million Jews destroyed. That sounds about right. [/quote]
weak
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:
Hey, I guess Hitler was just trying to protect the German people from evil Jews. He saved 25 million German lives by having just 9-12 million Jews destroyed. That sounds about right.
weak[/quote]
Sounds pretty sound to me. He was just trying to protect the German people destruction via the hand of the crafty and evil Jew. Things just got to carried away.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:
Hey, I guess Hitler was just trying to protect the German people from evil Jews. He saved 25 million German lives by having just 9-12 million Jews destroyed. That sounds about right.
weak[/quote]
no, just a consequent application of your ideas.
If it is ok to torture and it does not really harm them anyway, why not murderers, gang members, rapists, what the hell, tax evaders.
If it does more good than harm, why not do it.
You only have two choices.
A) Torture is intrinsically wrong.
B) Torture is a means to an end which is either good or bad. If that is so, I would like to know your math on this. If it potentially saves 100 American lives, why does it matter whether you torture an alleged terrorist or a gang member?
[quote]hedo wrote:
I’ll ask the General for you. I’m going to meet him at June at an Army celebration at which he is speaking. I’m going to speculate that he doesn’t have as much goodwill for the terrorists in captivity as you think he does.
[/quote]
Ask him about this interview last weekend while you’re at it:
[quote]FE/RL: As you know, General, the debate over Guantanamo and enhanced interrogation techniques has become “Topic A” in Washington. In your view, does the closing of “Gitmo” and the abandonment of those techniques complicate the U.S. mission in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the overall struggle against violent transnational extremist groups or does it help it?
Petraeus: I think, on balance, that those moves help it. In fact, I have long been on record as having testified and also in helping write doctrine for interrogation techniques that are completely in line with the Geneva Convention. And as a division commander in Iraq in the early days, we put out guidance very early on to make sure that our soldiers, in fact, knew that we needed to stay within those guidelines.
With respect to Guantanamo, I think that the closure in a responsible manner, obviously one that is certainly being worked out now by the Department of Justice – I talked to the attorney general the other day [and] they have a very intensive effort ongoing to determine, indeed, what to do with the detainees who are left, how to deal with them in a legal way, and if continued incarceration is necessary – again, how to take that forward.
But doing that in a responsible manner, I think, sends an important message to the world, as does the commitment of the United States to observe the Geneva Convention when it comes to the treatment of detainees.[/quote]
I don’t know, he seems pretty clear to me.
[quote]orion wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:
Hey, I guess Hitler was just trying to protect the German people from evil Jews. He saved 25 million German lives by having just 9-12 million Jews destroyed. That sounds about right.
weak
no, just a consequent application of your ideas.
If it is ok to torture and it does not really harm them anyway, why not murderers, gang members, rapists, what the hell, tax evaders.
If it does more good than harm, why not do it.
You only have two choices.
A) Torture is intrinsically wrong.
B) Torture is a means to an end which is either good or bad. If that is so, I would like to know your math on this. If it potentially saves 100 American lives, why does it matter whether you torture an alleged terrorist or a gang member?
[/quote]
Please. You can apply this to anything. How about killing?
A) Killing in intrinsically wrong.
B)Killing is a means to an end which is either good or bad. If that is so, I would like to know your math on this. If it potentially saves 100 American lives, why does it matter whether you kill an alleged terrorist or a gang member?
A) Locking people up in Jail is intrinically wrong.
B) Locking people up in jail is a means to an end which is either good or bad. If that is so, I would like to know you match on this. If it can potentialy save 100 Americans from being killed, why does it matter if you lock up a murderer or person that drives a car.
[quote]tme wrote:
hedo wrote:
I’ll ask the General for you. I’m going to meet him at June at an Army celebration at which he is speaking. I’m going to speculate that he doesn’t have as much goodwill for the terrorists in captivity as you think he does.
Ask him about this interview last weekend while you’re at it:
FE/RL: As you know, General, the debate over Guantanamo and enhanced interrogation techniques has become “Topic A” in Washington. In your view, does the closing of “Gitmo” and the abandonment of those techniques complicate the U.S. mission in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the overall struggle against violent transnational extremist groups or does it help it?
Petraeus: I think, on balance, that those moves help it. In fact, I have long been on record as having testified and also in helping write doctrine for interrogation techniques that are completely in line with the Geneva Convention. And as a division commander in Iraq in the early days, we put out guidance very early on to make sure that our soldiers, in fact, knew that we needed to stay within those guidelines.
With respect to Guantanamo, I think that the closure in a responsible manner, obviously one that is certainly being worked out now by the Department of Justice – I talked to the attorney general the other day [and] they have a very intensive effort ongoing to determine, indeed, what to do with the detainees who are left, how to deal with them in a legal way, and if continued incarceration is necessary – again, how to take that forward.
But doing that in a responsible manner, I think, sends an important message to the world, as does the commitment of the United States to observe the Geneva Convention when it comes to the treatment of detainees.
I don’t know, he seems pretty clear to me. [/quote]
I don’t recall the last time a standing general spoke out against a president’s policy.
[quote]tme wrote:
hedo wrote:
I’ll ask the General for you. I’m going to meet him at June at an Army celebration at which he is speaking. I’m going to speculate that he doesn’t have as much goodwill for the terrorists in captivity as you think he does.
Ask him about this interview last weekend while you’re at it:
FE/RL: As you know, General, the debate over Guantanamo and enhanced interrogation techniques has become “Topic A” in Washington. In your view, does the closing of “Gitmo” and the abandonment of those techniques complicate the U.S. mission in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the overall struggle against violent transnational extremist groups or does it help it?
Petraeus: I think, on balance, that those moves help it. In fact, I have long been on record as having testified and also in helping write doctrine for interrogation techniques that are completely in line with the Geneva Convention. And as a division commander in Iraq in the early days, we put out guidance very early on to make sure that our soldiers, in fact, knew that we needed to stay within those guidelines.
With respect to Guantanamo, I think that the closure in a responsible manner, obviously one that is certainly being worked out now by the Department of Justice – I talked to the attorney general the other day [and] they have a very intensive effort ongoing to determine, indeed, what to do with the detainees who are left, how to deal with them in a legal way, and if continued incarceration is necessary – again, how to take that forward.
But doing that in a responsible manner, I think, sends an important message to the world, as does the commitment of the United States to observe the Geneva Convention when it comes to the treatment of detainees.
I don’t know, he seems pretty clear to me. [/quote]
To you it would. You already reached a conclusion. Try thinking.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
orion wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:
Hey, I guess Hitler was just trying to protect the German people from evil Jews. He saved 25 million German lives by having just 9-12 million Jews destroyed. That sounds about right.
weak
no, just a consequent application of your ideas.
If it is ok to torture and it does not really harm them anyway, why not murderers, gang members, rapists, what the hell, tax evaders.
If it does more good than harm, why not do it.
You only have two choices.
A) Torture is intrinsically wrong.
B) Torture is a means to an end which is either good or bad. If that is so, I would like to know your math on this. If it potentially saves 100 American lives, why does it matter whether you torture an alleged terrorist or a gang member?
Please. You can apply this to anything. How about killing?
A) Killing in intrinsically wrong.
B)Killing is a means to an end which is either good or bad. If that is so, I would like to know your math on this. If it potentially saves 100 American lives, why does it matter whether you kill an alleged terrorist or a gang member?
A) Locking people up in Jail is intrinically wrong.
B) Locking people up in jail is a means to an end which is either good or bad. If that is so, I would like to know you match on this. If it can potentialy save 100 Americans from being killed, why does it matter if you lock up a murderer or person that drives a car.[/quote]
See, I was already dismantling your strawmen, but why let you dodge the question:
Why stop at torturing alleged terrorists.
Why them and only them and not other people too?
[quote]orion wrote:
dhickey wrote:
orion wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:
Hey, I guess Hitler was just trying to protect the German people from evil Jews. He saved 25 million German lives by having just 9-12 million Jews destroyed. That sounds about right.
weak
no, just a consequent application of your ideas.
If it is ok to torture and it does not really harm them anyway, why not murderers, gang members, rapists, what the hell, tax evaders.
If it does more good than harm, why not do it.
You only have two choices.
A) Torture is intrinsically wrong.
B) Torture is a means to an end which is either good or bad. If that is so, I would like to know your math on this. If it potentially saves 100 American lives, why does it matter whether you torture an alleged terrorist or a gang member?
Please. You can apply this to anything. How about killing?
A) Killing in intrinsically wrong.
B)Killing is a means to an end which is either good or bad. If that is so, I would like to know your math on this. If it potentially saves 100 American lives, why does it matter whether you kill an alleged terrorist or a gang member?
A) Locking people up in Jail is intrinically wrong.
B) Locking people up in jail is a means to an end which is either good or bad. If that is so, I would like to know you match on this. If it can potentialy save 100 Americans from being killed, why does it matter if you lock up a murderer or person that drives a car.
See, I was already dismantling your strawmen, but why let you dodge the question:
Why stop at torturing alleged terrorists.
Why them and only them and not other people too?
[/quote]
Ok. It’s an arbitrary line that has to be drawn somewhere. Just like the drinking age, legal limit for BAL, age of majority, any and all criminal punishment, seperation of powers, jurisdiction, ect.
We waterboarded three terrorists. I am not at all concerned that this will lead to torturing gang members. Just like we wouldn’t bomb south central LA to take them out, we will not waterboard them.
[quote]hedo wrote:
To you it would. You already reached a conclusion. Try thinking.
[/quote]
What is there to think about?
Not sure what other conclusion you can draw from that.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
orion wrote:
dhickey wrote:
orion wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:
Hey, I guess Hitler was just trying to protect the German people from evil Jews. He saved 25 million German lives by having just 9-12 million Jews destroyed. That sounds about right.
weak
no, just a consequent application of your ideas.
If it is ok to torture and it does not really harm them anyway, why not murderers, gang members, rapists, what the hell, tax evaders.
If it does more good than harm, why not do it.
You only have two choices.
A) Torture is intrinsically wrong.
B) Torture is a means to an end which is either good or bad. If that is so, I would like to know your math on this. If it potentially saves 100 American lives, why does it matter whether you torture an alleged terrorist or a gang member?
Please. You can apply this to anything. How about killing?
A) Killing in intrinsically wrong.
B)Killing is a means to an end which is either good or bad. If that is so, I would like to know your math on this. If it potentially saves 100 American lives, why does it matter whether you kill an alleged terrorist or a gang member?
A) Locking people up in Jail is intrinically wrong.
B) Locking people up in jail is a means to an end which is either good or bad. If that is so, I would like to know you match on this. If it can potentialy save 100 Americans from being killed, why does it matter if you lock up a murderer or person that drives a car.
See, I was already dismantling your strawmen, but why let you dodge the question:
Why stop at torturing alleged terrorists.
Why them and only them and not other people too?
Ok. It’s an arbitrary line that has to be drawn somewhere. Just like the drinking age, legal limit for BAL, age of majority, any and all criminal punishment, seperation of powers, jurisdiction, ect.
We waterboarded three terrorists. I am not at all concerned that this will lead to torturing gang members. Just like we wouldn’t bomb south central LA to take them out, we will not waterboard them. [/quote]
The income tax, when introduced to the US, was 7% at the highest progression. They even wanted that to be the limit, right in the amendment, but ultimately they though that anything beyond that would mean that the American people would burn the congress down.
10 years later, the highest rate was 77%, at a much lower income.
When they introduced RICO it was, cross my heart, only to fight the mafia. Plus, there were only 3-4 federal crimes this could apply to, so why bother.
Now, there are over 1000 and innocent people plea bargain because otherwise a DA only has to prove that it kind of could have happened and then you are fucked for a decade or so.
When they introduced forfeiture laws it was for drug trafficking, now you can lose your car for drunk driving. Plus, if you have an “unusual” amount of money on you, they take that too. In the most extreme case you have no property left to sue them to get your property back.
These are the people you want to give the right to torture to.
[quote]orion wrote:
dhickey wrote:
orion wrote:
dhickey wrote:
orion wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:
Hey, I guess Hitler was just trying to protect the German people from evil Jews. He saved 25 million German lives by having just 9-12 million Jews destroyed. That sounds about right.
weak
no, just a consequent application of your ideas.
If it is ok to torture and it does not really harm them anyway, why not murderers, gang members, rapists, what the hell, tax evaders.
If it does more good than harm, why not do it.
You only have two choices.
A) Torture is intrinsically wrong.
B) Torture is a means to an end which is either good or bad. If that is so, I would like to know your math on this. If it potentially saves 100 American lives, why does it matter whether you torture an alleged terrorist or a gang member?
Please. You can apply this to anything. How about killing?
A) Killing in intrinsically wrong.
B)Killing is a means to an end which is either good or bad. If that is so, I would like to know your math on this. If it potentially saves 100 American lives, why does it matter whether you kill an alleged terrorist or a gang member?
A) Locking people up in Jail is intrinically wrong.
B) Locking people up in jail is a means to an end which is either good or bad. If that is so, I would like to know you match on this. If it can potentialy save 100 Americans from being killed, why does it matter if you lock up a murderer or person that drives a car.
See, I was already dismantling your strawmen, but why let you dodge the question:
Why stop at torturing alleged terrorists.
Why them and only them and not other people too?
Ok. It’s an arbitrary line that has to be drawn somewhere. Just like the drinking age, legal limit for BAL, age of majority, any and all criminal punishment, seperation of powers, jurisdiction, ect.
We waterboarded three terrorists. I am not at all concerned that this will lead to torturing gang members. Just like we wouldn’t bomb south central LA to take them out, we will not waterboard them.
The income tax, when introduced to the US, was 7% at the highest progression. They even wanted that to be the limit, right in the amendment, but ultimately they though that anything beyond that would mean that the American people would burn the congress down.
10 years later, the highest rate was 77%, at a much lower income.
When they introduced RICO it was, cross my heart, only to fight the mafia. Plus, there were only 3-4 federal crimes this could apply to, so why bother.
Now, there are over 1000 and innocent people plea bargain because otherwise a DA only has to prove that it kind of could have happened and then you are fucked for a decade or so.
When they introduced forfeiture laws it was for drug trafficking, now you can lose your car for drunk driving. Plus, if you have an “unusual” amount of money on you, they take that too. In the most extreme case you have no property left to sue them to get your property back.
These are the people you want to give the right to torture to.
[/quote]
Sums it up perfectly.
[quote]orion wrote:
dhickey wrote:
orion wrote:
dhickey wrote:
orion wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:
Hey, I guess Hitler was just trying to protect the German people from evil Jews. He saved 25 million German lives by having just 9-12 million Jews destroyed. That sounds about right.
weak
no, just a consequent application of your ideas.
If it is ok to torture and it does not really harm them anyway, why not murderers, gang members, rapists, what the hell, tax evaders.
If it does more good than harm, why not do it.
You only have two choices.
A) Torture is intrinsically wrong.
B) Torture is a means to an end which is either good or bad. If that is so, I would like to know your math on this. If it potentially saves 100 American lives, why does it matter whether you torture an alleged terrorist or a gang member?
Please. You can apply this to anything. How about killing?
A) Killing in intrinsically wrong.
B)Killing is a means to an end which is either good or bad. If that is so, I would like to know your math on this. If it potentially saves 100 American lives, why does it matter whether you kill an alleged terrorist or a gang member?
A) Locking people up in Jail is intrinically wrong.
B) Locking people up in jail is a means to an end which is either good or bad. If that is so, I would like to know you match on this. If it can potentialy save 100 Americans from being killed, why does it matter if you lock up a murderer or person that drives a car.
See, I was already dismantling your strawmen, but why let you dodge the question:
Why stop at torturing alleged terrorists.
Why them and only them and not other people too?
Ok. It’s an arbitrary line that has to be drawn somewhere. Just like the drinking age, legal limit for BAL, age of majority, any and all criminal punishment, seperation of powers, jurisdiction, ect.
We waterboarded three terrorists. I am not at all concerned that this will lead to torturing gang members. Just like we wouldn’t bomb south central LA to take them out, we will not waterboard them.
The income tax, when introduced to the US, was 7% at the highest progression. They even wanted that to be the limit, right in the amendment, but ultimately they though that anything beyond that would mean that the American people would burn the congress down.
10 years later, the highest rate was 77%, at a much lower income.
When they introduced RICO it was, cross my heart, only to fight the mafia. Plus, there were only 3-4 federal crimes this could apply to, so why bother.
Now, there are over 1000 and innocent people plea bargain because otherwise a DA only has to prove that it kind of could have happened and then you are fucked for a decade or so.
When they introduced forfeiture laws it was for drug trafficking, now you can lose your car for drunk driving. Plus, if you have an “unusual” amount of money on you, they take that too. In the most extreme case you have no property left to sue them to get your property back.
These are the people you want to give the right to torture to.
[/quote]
No they are not the people I want to give the right to torture to. I thought I made that clear. Again, this is a military tactic. If you want to compare it to something, compare it to carpet bombing or some other militarty tactic.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
orion wrote:
dhickey wrote:
orion wrote:
dhickey wrote:
orion wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:
Hey, I guess Hitler was just trying to protect the German people from evil Jews. He saved 25 million German lives by having just 9-12 million Jews destroyed. That sounds about right.
weak
no, just a consequent application of your ideas.
If it is ok to torture and it does not really harm them anyway, why not murderers, gang members, rapists, what the hell, tax evaders.
If it does more good than harm, why not do it.
You only have two choices.
A) Torture is intrinsically wrong.
B) Torture is a means to an end which is either good or bad. If that is so, I would like to know your math on this. If it potentially saves 100 American lives, why does it matter whether you torture an alleged terrorist or a gang member?
Please. You can apply this to anything. How about killing?
A) Killing in intrinsically wrong.
B)Killing is a means to an end which is either good or bad. If that is so, I would like to know your math on this. If it potentially saves 100 American lives, why does it matter whether you kill an alleged terrorist or a gang member?
A) Locking people up in Jail is intrinically wrong.
B) Locking people up in jail is a means to an end which is either good or bad. If that is so, I would like to know you match on this. If it can potentialy save 100 Americans from being killed, why does it matter if you lock up a murderer or person that drives a car.
See, I was already dismantling your strawmen, but why let you dodge the question:
Why stop at torturing alleged terrorists.
Why them and only them and not other people too?
Ok. It’s an arbitrary line that has to be drawn somewhere. Just like the drinking age, legal limit for BAL, age of majority, any and all criminal punishment, seperation of powers, jurisdiction, ect.
We waterboarded three terrorists. I am not at all concerned that this will lead to torturing gang members. Just like we wouldn’t bomb south central LA to take them out, we will not waterboard them.
The income tax, when introduced to the US, was 7% at the highest progression. They even wanted that to be the limit, right in the amendment, but ultimately they though that anything beyond that would mean that the American people would burn the congress down.
10 years later, the highest rate was 77%, at a much lower income.
When they introduced RICO it was, cross my heart, only to fight the mafia. Plus, there were only 3-4 federal crimes this could apply to, so why bother.
Now, there are over 1000 and innocent people plea bargain because otherwise a DA only has to prove that it kind of could have happened and then you are fucked for a decade or so.
When they introduced forfeiture laws it was for drug trafficking, now you can lose your car for drunk driving. Plus, if you have an “unusual” amount of money on you, they take that too. In the most extreme case you have no property left to sue them to get your property back.
These are the people you want to give the right to torture to.
No they are not the people I want to give the right to torture to. I thought I made that clear. Again, this is a military tactic. If you want to compare it to something, compare it to carpet bombing or some other militarty tactic.[/quote]
That is a dodge.
Either you are arguing that a military should make such decisions for itself or politicians are all that is left.
[quote]orion wrote:
dhickey wrote:
orion wrote:
dhickey wrote:
orion wrote:
dhickey wrote:
orion wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:
Hey, I guess Hitler was just trying to protect the German people from evil Jews. He saved 25 million German lives by having just 9-12 million Jews destroyed. That sounds about right.
weak
no, just a consequent application of your ideas.
If it is ok to torture and it does not really harm them anyway, why not murderers, gang members, rapists, what the hell, tax evaders.
If it does more good than harm, why not do it.
You only have two choices.
A) Torture is intrinsically wrong.
B) Torture is a means to an end which is either good or bad. If that is so, I would like to know your math on this. If it potentially saves 100 American lives, why does it matter whether you torture an alleged terrorist or a gang member?
Please. You can apply this to anything. How about killing?
A) Killing in intrinsically wrong.
B)Killing is a means to an end which is either good or bad. If that is so, I would like to know your math on this. If it potentially saves 100 American lives, why does it matter whether you kill an alleged terrorist or a gang member?
A) Locking people up in Jail is intrinically wrong.
B) Locking people up in jail is a means to an end which is either good or bad. If that is so, I would like to know you match on this. If it can potentialy save 100 Americans from being killed, why does it matter if you lock up a murderer or person that drives a car.
See, I was already dismantling your strawmen, but why let you dodge the question:
Why stop at torturing alleged terrorists.
Why them and only them and not other people too?
Ok. It’s an arbitrary line that has to be drawn somewhere. Just like the drinking age, legal limit for BAL, age of majority, any and all criminal punishment, seperation of powers, jurisdiction, ect.
We waterboarded three terrorists. I am not at all concerned that this will lead to torturing gang members. Just like we wouldn’t bomb south central LA to take them out, we will not waterboard them.
The income tax, when introduced to the US, was 7% at the highest progression. They even wanted that to be the limit, right in the amendment, but ultimately they though that anything beyond that would mean that the American people would burn the congress down.
10 years later, the highest rate was 77%, at a much lower income.
When they introduced RICO it was, cross my heart, only to fight the mafia. Plus, there were only 3-4 federal crimes this could apply to, so why bother.
Now, there are over 1000 and innocent people plea bargain because otherwise a DA only has to prove that it kind of could have happened and then you are fucked for a decade or so.
When they introduced forfeiture laws it was for drug trafficking, now you can lose your car for drunk driving. Plus, if you have an “unusual” amount of money on you, they take that too. In the most extreme case you have no property left to sue them to get your property back.
These are the people you want to give the right to torture to.
No they are not the people I want to give the right to torture to. I thought I made that clear. Again, this is a military tactic. If you want to compare it to something, compare it to carpet bombing or some other militarty tactic.
That is a dodge.
Either you are arguing that a military should make such decisions for itself or politicians are all that is left.
[/quote]
That’s a false choice. Obviously someone signs off on military tactics. It does not change the fact that they are military tactics. How many military tactics have never been used on our own citizens? I would guess quite a few. What’s so hard to understand?
[quote]tme wrote:
hedo wrote:
To you it would. You already reached a conclusion. Try thinking.
What is there to think about?
Petraeus: I think, on balance, that those moves help it. In fact, I have long been on record as having testified and also in helping write doctrine for interrogation techniques that are completely in line with the Geneva Convention. And as a division commander in Iraq in the early days, we put out guidance very early on to make sure that our soldiers, in fact, knew that we needed to stay within those guidelines.
Not sure what other conclusion you can draw from that.
[/quote]
Big difference between a division S2 in the field interrogating a prisoner taken in a battle and a CIA officer, with legal guidance from a White House Lawyer, interrogating a terrorist leader who has current intel in his mind. Orders of magnitude.
Bottom line it worked. It drives the libs crazy.
Like I said you made your conclusion before you read anything on the subject. What’s the point. Fanatics won’t change their mind and won’t change the subject.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
That’s a false choice. Obviously someone signs off on military tactics. It does not change the fact that they are military tactics. How many military tactics have never been used on our own citizens? I would guess quite a few. What’s so hard to understand?[/quote]
So you think that there is a branch of government called the “military” that is somehow magically separated from all the others? Why would it even matter who water boards you?
Maybe a draft system has its advantages, it makes it next to impossible to glorify military “service”.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Like I said you made your conclusion before you read anything on the subject. What’s the point. Fanatics won’t change their mind and won’t change the subject.[/quote]
â??Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.â??
Marcus Tullius Cicero
â??Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a viceâ??
Thomas Paine
[quote]orion wrote:
dhickey wrote:
That’s a false choice. Obviously someone signs off on military tactics. It does not change the fact that they are military tactics. How many military tactics have never been used on our own citizens? I would guess quite a few. What’s so hard to understand?
So you think that there is a branch of government called the “military” that is somehow magically separated from all the others? Why would it even matter who water boards you?
Maybe a draft system has its advantages, it makes it next to impossible to glorify military “service”. [/quote]
This has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Let me take one more shot at this.
There are military tactics that are never used on our own population. Why would I treat this any differently? Why should I be worried about being waterboarded more than I should be worriecd about a B2 (or whatever, not a military guy) taking out my Neighborhood?