Reply With Quote
You did?
Well, you could just nuke that country. That would eliminate all terrorists there, wouldn't it? :p
You did?
Does it matter? People supported the Iraqi war when it started because they were lied to. Once the ruse came tumbling down, you think people were not angry that american soldiers were dying for a bull war?
Again, go ask the GOP why they lost the '06 elections.
How did we gather information during the cold war? Do you think we went torturing every russian we got our hands on? (And I'm not claiming there was zero torture involved in that case, but you couldn't possibly assert that torture was the only means to obtain information on a theater of that magnitude).
Of course there are other methods.
Well, Harry Truman did drop two atomic bombs on Japan to save American lives.
The monomaniacal focus on the moral probity of torture is ghoulish to me.
At the time, there wasn't unanimity on that. Have you read the military opinions, Darrin? History can be surprising.
The yellow man was nuked, in part due to the likelihood that middle America wouldn't give a damn. The krauts were subjected to massive, repe ive carpet bombing.
Do you think that was acceptable?
Is there a point at which the ratio of innocent lives lost vs the chance of American lives lost is too great?
Don't forget the firebomb runs.
I've read some opinion that the Japanese mindset is different from ours, and that if we were to attack the mainland, citizens would take up arms against us, effectively making them combatants. This would lead to as great or greater losses, and hence justify the bombing. However, it doesn't pass the sniff test with me from everything I've read.
Who cares? We aren't talking about those who looked like good normal upstanding 'muricans...
Well, another reason was probably to scare the out of the Russians, but they ended up with their own anyway.
In any case after actually dropping the bomb, we never had to use it as a threat again until Clinton, I think, who counter-offered a NK offer to bomb us.
Last edited by Winehole23; 04-21-2009 at 07:59 PM.
I'd rather torture a thousand innocent middle easterners than lose one hypothetical city.
Past tense, maybe. It's possible we already did.
What, 500-600 Gitmo prisoners were let go without charges of any kind, right?
Won't somebody please think of the hypothetical children!
they are the hypothetical future after all.
Last edited by Oh, Gee!!; 04-21-2009 at 08:57 PM.
Today that company includes Obama DNI Dennis Blair.
The Bush and Obama takes on *enhanced interrogation* are quasi-identical.
Accountability for Bush era crime will proceed in Truth Comission style, with criminals sworn on the condition of legal immunity. The CIA will be allowed to tell their tales and shrug off their mistakes and meet the challenges of the future. Lessons will be learned and fables told to terrify our nieces and nephews.
The DOJ may still have something to say about it, but Holder seems to bite his tongue just as well as Mukasey IMO.
Last edited by Winehole23; 04-21-2009 at 11:03 PM.
And we pretend elections matter. Oh well, life is too short to be paranoid.
The Bush DOJ report on the OLC was harsh, and the repercussions from it could roll up a few guys like Bybee and Yoo.
The rules are different for them, as opposed to people like you and me.
We'll see if noblesse oblige still obtains. You could be right.
And it doesn't change, no matter the party in control. I guess occasionally the odd congressman commits a crime either so heinous or so stupid that they can't avoid doing some time (usually, it seems to be that they aren't financially able to procure proper legal counsel).
Okay, I read it. Since my google search for "geneva convention declaration" returned several things I'm assuming this is what you are talking about. http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html#Article%201.1
If it is, the definition of torture provided is pretty vague. And that creates a huge problem in trying to make unilateral statements that interrogation is okay, but torture isn't. Because different people are going to have different interpretations of where that line is.
From Part I, Article 1 of the link above:
For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person..............
So does this mean that intentionally inflicting pain or suffering is not torture so long as that pain and suffering is not severe? What do we do when we all have different interpretations of where that threshold between "severe" and "not severe" is?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
