Page 17 of 35 FirstFirst ... 713141516171819202127 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 425 of 863
  1. #401
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781
    I disagree that a free country has the right to invade a dictatorship. I would only agree that a free country has the right to invade a dictatorship if there was something occuring such as genocide, or if the population specifically requested our help. Any invasion/attack leads to innocent casualties. If we are going to invade, we would have to make sure the reason for invasion outweighed any potential innocent loss of life.
    What if the dictatorship was engaging in activities that threatened the stability of a region vital to our national interests?

  2. #402
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781
    You know, the military isn't a business... they get their funds authorized from Congress. And I'm pretty sure that they're more concerned with spending money to get the mission accomplished, rather than build separate barracks for sexuals.
    Precisely my point. If they can't afford the ensuing headaches, why lift DADT? They put it off for almost 3 years after Obama ordered it, for that very reason. After all, what needed to be done in order to lift DADT? I could have been done the day it was ordered. No?

    If the military required that of her, yes. She would just have to suck it up.
    Well, at least you're consistent. However, your consistency wouldn't stop the tsunami of hostile work environment lawsuits that would ensue.

    What "real fun"? The cours will decide if they have a legitimate complaint, and will force the military to accomodate them if they win. *shrug* The military has about 500 more pressing issues than whether or not gays can bunk with straights.
    And, how do you suppose the military will accommodate them? And, you're absolutely right, the military has about 500 more pressing issues than DADT and the fallout that may result from it being lifted. Should have been left in place.

  3. #403
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    What if the dictatorship was engaging in activities that threatened the stability of a region vital to our national interests?
    I could see agreeing with that, provided that you could prove that the region would be unstable without our help, and that said region was absolutely vital to our national interests.

    Of course, that decision wouldn't necessarily lie on a moral/immoral axis, but a realpolitik one.

  4. #404
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    Precisely my point. If they can't afford the ensuing headaches, why lift DADT? They put it off for almost 3 years after Obama ordered it, for that very reason. After all, what needed to be done in order to lift DADT? I could have been done the day it was ordered. No?
    Except military leadership was asked whether or not they could afford the ensuring headaches, and they did a study, and found that they could. They also determined that the cost of future headaches was less than the cost of kicking out already-trained soldiers who were outed as gay.

    And it wasn't done the day after it was ordered precisely because Obama talked with generals, and they said they needed time to study the effects lifting DADT would have, and time to train personnel.

    Well, at least you're consistent. However, your consistency wouldn't stop the tsunami of hostile work environment lawsuits that would ensue.
    Deployments are hostile work environments. Having to bunk/shower with sexuals isn't nearly as hostile.

    And, how do you suppose the military will accommodate them? And, you're absolutely right, the military has about 500 more pressing issues than DADT and the fallout that may result from it being lifted. Should have been left in place.
    You seem to be ignoring that DADT was causing issues itself.

  5. #405
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781
    Except military leadership was asked whether or not they could afford the ensuring headaches, and they did a study, and found that they could. They also determined that the cost of future headaches was less than the cost of kicking out already-trained soldiers who were outed as gay.

    And it wasn't done the day after it was ordered precisely because Obama talked with generals, and they said they needed time to study the effects lifting DADT would have, and time to train personnel.
    So, it wasn't a "no-brainer?" And, of course, the military has never, ever underestimated the cost of anything, have they?

    Deployments are hostile work environments. Having to bunk/shower with sexuals isn't nearly as hostile.
    You and I may share that view but, it isn't ours that matters; it's the sexual that believes it is that matters.

    You seem to be ignoring that DADT was causing issues itself.
    Not ignoring it; I just think they've traded a devil they knew for one they don't. And, in the current climate of global conflict, I'm not sure we need to be risking the unintended consequences that seem to always accompany government policy changes.

  6. #406
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    So, it wasn't a "no-brainer?" And, of course, the military has never, ever underestimated the cost of anything, have they?
    The military made cost evaluations and determined it wouldn't greatly affect mission completion. If they're wrong, they're wrong. I doubt they are though.

    You and I may share that view but, it isn't ours that matters; it's the sexual that believes it is that matters.
    The sexual can feel free to bring it to court then. Or he can get out of the military. *shrug*


    Not ignoring it; I just think they've traded a devil they knew for one they don't. And, in the current climate of global conflict, I'm not sure we need to be risking the unintended consequences that seem to always accompany government policy changes.
    There might be unintended consequences, but the current consequences (denying the liberty of serving openly as a sexual, kicking out trained professionals, etc etc) seem to outweigh any potential future consequences.

  7. #407
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781
    The military made cost evaluations and determined it wouldn't greatly affect mission completion. If they're wrong, they're wrong. I doubt they are though.
    Okay but, color me skeptical of the military being able to do anything other than kill people and break stuff very well.

    The sexual can feel free to bring it to court then. Or he can get out of the military. *shrug*
    Okay. And, when the military is wrestling with how to accommodate the web of various combinations of orientations and sexes -- while trying to win a war -- we can all just *shrug* I guess.

    There might be unintended consequences, but the current consequences (denying the liberty of serving openly as a sexual, kicking out trained professionals, etc etc) seem to outweigh any potential future consequences.
    Members of our military give up a lot of their liberties in order to serve. Why couldn't sexuals just "get over it," as has been said about others being forced to accommodate a undesirable arrangement?

  8. #408
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    154,406
    Members of our military give up a lot of their liberties in order to serve. Why couldn't sexuals just "get over it," as has been said about others being forced to accommodate a undesirable arrangement?
    Couldn't married servicemen and women just get over it and abandon their families for the sake of military efficiency?

  9. #409
    Independent DMX7's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Post Count
    22,149
    Are they going to be ing on the job, Yoni?

  10. #410
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781
    Are they going to be ing on the job, Yoni?
    Probably no more than heterosexuals.

  11. #411
    Independent DMX7's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Post Count
    22,149
    Probably no more than heterosexuals.
    And how is that working out?

  12. #412
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781
    And how is that working out?
    Well, at least we won't have the issue of a nuclear sub having to surface or port to off-load a pregnant sailor.

  13. #413
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    Okay but, color me skeptical of the military being able to do anything other than kill people and break stuff very well.
    Actually, the military does a lot more than that. We have doctors, communications technicians, civil engineers, etc etc. Bases are pretty much their own community; for instance, after Katrina hit, Keesler AFB was up and running far before the town of Biloxi was.

    Okay. And, when the military is wrestling with how to accommodate the web of various combinations of orientations and sexes -- while trying to win a war -- we can all just *shrug* I guess.
    Do you think the military too inept to have to deal with that situation if it arises? The military can fly overseas, perform black ops and get the most wanted man in the world, but they can't devise a way to separate certain people from other people?


    Members of our military give up a lot of their liberties in order to serve. Why couldn't sexuals just "get over it," as has been said about others being forced to accommodate a undesirable arrangement?
    Since you're not in the military, I'll forgive you for not understanding why we give up the liberties we do. But I can certainly tell you that not having the liberty to serve as an open hetero or sexual is a liberty that should not be denied. The right to have that liberty far outweighs the needs to take it away.

  14. #414
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781
    There's another salient point... which is the legal one.

    Nobody is above the law. And if there's a law criminalizing torture, then torture is a crime and must be punished as such.
    So, back to the topic of the thread.

    I went back to a specific comment because it reminded me of something I heard once. Took me a bit to find it but, here it is:

    "Many errors, of a truth, consist merely in the application of the wrong names of things." - Spinoza
    Calling the enhanced technique, known as "waterboarding," torture doesn't make it so.

    Also, if there's a law criminalizing the enhanced interrogation technique, known as "waterboarding," it didn't exist before the technique was applied to detainees.

  15. #415
    right about pizzagate Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    83,638
    Calling the enhanced technique, known as "waterboarding," torture doesn't make it so.
    are you going by your own waterboarding experiences?

  16. #416
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781
    are you going by your own waterboarding experiences?
    Nope. I'm basing it on the fact there was a ton of caterwauling on the issue, from the time it became known the technique was being used until now, and, yet, not one person has been indicted, tried, or convicted for torture.

    I'm basing it on the fact the Bush administration apparently did due diligence in analyzing the issue and, employing legal counsel, arrived at the conclusion (twice) the practice -- as defined by the administration and employed by their agents -- did not cons ute torture. A court has yet to find that counsel in error.

    Can you cite a criminal or civil case that actually looked at the facts of any of the specific applications of "waterboarding," in this context, and determined the law was broken?

    Did they walk a fine line? Sure. And, I'm okay with that. But, the fact remains, the Bush administration had their legal counsel draw that line and no court has yet said the line was in the wrong place.

  17. #417
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    153,473
    Also, if there's a law criminalizing the enhanced interrogation technique, known as "waterboarding," it didn't exist before the technique was applied to detainees.
    Sure it did. Both military and civil law predate 9/11/01, IIRC.

    That's why the point was to try not to frame it as torture back then.

  18. #418
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    154,406
    Nope. I'm basing it on the fact there was a ton of caterwauling on the issue, from the time it became known the technique was being used until now, and, yet, not one person has been indicted, tried, or convicted for torture.
    Several have.

    I'm basing it on the fact the Bush administration apparently did due diligence in analyzing the issue and, employing legal counsel, arrived at the conclusion (twice) the practice -- as defined by the administration and employed by their agents -- did not cons ute torture. A court has yet to find that counsel in error.
    If that's how it happened, they don't know how to do the most basic research.

    Can you cite a criminal or civil case that actually looked at the facts of any of the specific applications of "waterboarding," in this context, and determined the law was broken?
    I did that for you years ago and you ran away. You should probably try Googling it. Tell Woo and Bybee what you found.

  19. #419
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    113,841
    Even before I came into office, I was very clear that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, we did some things that were wrong. We did a whole lot of things that were right, but we tortured some folks. We did some things that were contrary to our values. I understand why it happened. I think it's important when we look back to recall how afraid people were after the twin towers fell and the Pentagon had been hit and the plane in Pennsylvania had fallen and people did not know whether more attacks were imminent and there was enormous pressure on our law enforcement and our national security teams to try to deal with this. And, you know, it's important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had. A lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots, but having said all that, we did some things that were wrong. And that's what that report reflects.

  20. #420
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Even before I came into office, I was very clear that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, we did some things that were wrong. We did a whole lot of things that were right, but we tortured some folks. We did some things that were contrary to our values. I understand why it happened. I think it's important when we look back to recall how afraid people were after the twin towers fell and the Pentagon had been hit and the plane in Pennsylvania had fallen and people did not know whether more attacks were imminent and there was enormous pressure on our law enforcement and our national security teams to try to deal with this. And, you know, it's important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had. A lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots, but having said all that, we did some things that were wrong. And that's what that report reflects.
    OMG.

    O-Bomb-a attacks villages with impunity using drones, killing more innocent life than what can be called collateral damage, and he thinks he has any moral leadership?

    Wow...

  21. #421
    coffee is for closers Infinite_limit's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Post Count
    8,148
    Torture doesn't work unless there is threat of death. Otherwise subject will simply offer false information for the pain to stop.

  22. #422
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    113,841
    The appropriate response to this is, our enemies are going to call us evil and take any opportunity to exploit our practices to make us out to be evil.

    BFD.

    The problem I have is people like you and other's not being able to make the fundamental distinction between the enhanced interrogation technique we employed and the one that cons utes torture.
    In a two-day presentation in Geneva, the American delegation acknowledged that the United States had tortured terrorism suspects after the Sept. 11 attacks.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/14/wo...ref=world&_r=1
    Last edited by Winehole23; 11-15-2014 at 03:03 PM.

  23. #423
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    113,841
    Alessio Bruni of Italy, a member of the United Nations committee, pressed the delegation to explain Appendix M of the manual, which contains special procedures for separating captives in order to prevent them from communicating. The appendix says that prisoners shall receive at least four hours of sleep a day — an amount Mr. Bruni said would be sleep deprivation over prolonged periods and unrelated to preventing communication.


    Brig. Gen. Richard C. Gross, the top legal adviser to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that reading the appendix as intended to permit sleep deprivation was a misinterpretation. Four hours is “a minimum standard; it’s not the maximum they can get,” he said, adding that the rule had to be read in the context of the rest of the manual, including a requirement for medical and legal monitoring of treatment “to ensure it is humane, legal and so forth.”


    Mr. Bruni was not persuaded. He said that calling the provision a minimum standard still meant four hours a night for long periods was “permissible.” He suggested that Appendix M “be simply deleted.”


    In the presentation, streamed live online from Geneva, the committee also scrutinized whether the United States had adequately investigated the C.I.A.’s Bush-era “rendition, detention and interrogation” program for high-level suspects linked to Al Qaeda.
    A provision of the treaty, the Convention Against Torture, requires parties to investigate and provide accountability for past instances of torture. The American delegation said that the United States had investigated the C.I.A. program, and that the coming publication of a Senate Intelligence Committee report would add to the public record.


    “Our goal is to move forward, but we know that to avoid falling backward, we must be willing to look backward and to come to terms with what happened in the past,” said Tom Malinowski, the assistant secretary of state for human rights.
    same

  24. #424
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781
    According to President Obama, torture does work. Well, enhanced interrogations do, anyway.

    An Interrogator Breaks His Silence

    Candidate Obama repeatedly stated that enhanced interrogation was not only immoral and un-American, but it didn’t work. People will say anything to make it stop. Every leading interrogator and intelligence professional will tell you that “torture” never works—it produces bad intelligence.
    "I am absolutely convinced it was the right thing to do [to end enhanced interrogation] —- not because there might not have been information that was yielded by these various detainees who were subjected to this treatment, but because we could have gotten this information in other ways, in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are.

    "But here’s what I can tell you —- that the public reports and the public justifications for these techniques -— which is that we got information from these individuals that were subjected to these techniques– doesn’t answer the core question, which is: Could we have gotten that same information without resorting to these techniques? And it doesn’t answer the broader question: Are we safer as a consequence of having used these techniques?"
    Hmmmm... Before being President, "it never works." After becoming President and having access to the truth, "it works but, we could have gotten the information using a different technique."

    So, the questions of whether or not enhanced interrogation techniques can yield good, actionable intelligence can be answered in the affirmative. Even someone who had previously been certain of the opposite, and claimed so, was convinced, once he had access to all the information.

    Now, the question of whether or not the intelligence could have been secured in other, less unsavory, methods isn't quite as straightforward, is it?

    Well, here's how the intelligence officer that wrote the linked report answers that question:

    "I know that we couldn’t have collected the same information using standard techniques because I was an expert in using standard techniques — I used them thousands of times over two decades — and the notion that I could have convinced the detainees. . .to provide closely-held information (or any information at all) without the use of enhanced interrogation techniques is laughable. There is zero chance. Zero."

  25. #425
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    Pussy eater logic: torture works, so he's alright with America torturing like any country.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •