Curious what everyone thinks about the details coming out in the report on CIA interrogation techniques. Is any of it surprising? Does it actually fit the definition of torture? Should there be consequences for the people who crossed the line?
Thoughts on the CIA Report
- Thread starter pastorjoeboggs
- Start date
I will go with what John McCain said. He has quite a bit of credibility, and isn't afraid to stray from the party message. He nailed it, IMO.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
$50 million price tag and for this report? And they didn't interview a single person who supposedly carried out these techniques? How is that possible?
Regarding the techniques used by our military - to steal a line from Greg Gutfeld - "I like to use the liberal term - it was for the greater good. We waterboarded for the greater good."
FWIW, I have no problem with using whatever techniques deemed necessary when dealing with people that continue to cut the heads off of innocent civilians and who flew planes into commercial buildings to kill 3,000 civilians.
Diane Feinstein admitted it was released for political reasons. What used to be "what's best for America", is now clearly about "What's best for my political party."
And you ask if there should be consequences for the people who crossed the line? Good grief.
Regarding the techniques used by our military - to steal a line from Greg Gutfeld - "I like to use the liberal term - it was for the greater good. We waterboarded for the greater good."
FWIW, I have no problem with using whatever techniques deemed necessary when dealing with people that continue to cut the heads off of innocent civilians and who flew planes into commercial buildings to kill 3,000 civilians.
Diane Feinstein admitted it was released for political reasons. What used to be "what's best for America", is now clearly about "What's best for my political party."
And you ask if there should be consequences for the people who crossed the line? Good grief.
Should there be consequences for the airmen who dropped the A bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Should we in a few years down the road, hold the military responsible for the drone attacks going on today? What about the Roosevelt's carpet bombing of the Germans?
In the words of Michael Hayden, "Now that we've made everyone feel more comfortable, they've stopped complaining that we're not doing enough to keep them safe. Now, since we've made them feel safe again, they've started complaining that we did too much."
Ask those who are upset with the findings of the report what sort of interrogation techniques they would have been comfortable with on 9/12/2001. I have a feeling their answer would've been quite a bit different than today.
The first responsibility is the security of the American people. At times that takes precedent over our values.
I wish McCain were 15-20 years younger and could run for President again. I still think Palin is the main reason he lost. It is issues like this where he has credibility.
I find the report to be horrifying. The question of whether or not actionable intelligence was received seems irrelevant. The end cannot always justify the means.
Correct. I just walked through the 9/11 memorial and museum today. Even with the mix of anger and grief and near tears, I can't imagine some of the crap we did as justifiable against another human being. Simply because they dehumanize us, does not make it right for us to do to them. I am not against water boarding, and techniques similar, but some of the crap described in the report is just wrong.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
I went to the 9/11 memorial before the museum was complete (and the water wasn't running, because it was 12/31). I didn't think I'd be all that affected by it, but it was a very moving experience. They did a phenomenal job with that memorial. The only thing I didn't like about it (and this lack of respect and self-awareness still irritates me) was all the people smiling, posing and having their photos taken at the site. This was barely 10 years ago. How can anyone really smile there? What was worse was someone tried to pose for a photo sitting on one of the ledges (that made me angry). The security was very good and shooed them away quickly.
Anyway, horrible though that was, I still do not condone stooping to the level of those who commit those acts.
Anyway, horrible though that was, I still do not condone stooping to the level of those who commit those acts.
I saw your post early on Friday but was too busy to respond. I was also curious as to how many responses you might get as this argument seems to have been rehashed many times on here over the years. But in a nutshell, to reply to your 3 questions:
1: Not too surprising. Had a good idea a lot of this was going on. Another better question might be if we have really heard the worst of what may have happened.
2: Definitely, without a doubt. We prosecuted Germans and Japanese for similar crimes. Are we not to be held accountable in the same circumstances?
3: Most definitely. But unfortunately we have set previous precedents not to totally air our really dirty laundry in public in cases like Johnson's Tonkin Gulf incident, Nixon's undermining of the Paris Peace Conference and then escalating the Vietnam War, Reagan's non-October surprise in the release of the Iranian hostages and later in the Iran-Contra affair, Bush Sr.'s Gulf War I and his tacit approval of Saddam to invade Kuwait in the first place, and Bush Jr.'s Iraq War fiasco (note: I am not trying to keep score of "my" side against "your" side in the total number of atrocities each "party" has committed as I am sure there are many I have missed from each person's perspective, but these have all been American atrocities and not party atrocities). But, because we have not prosecuted our own previous crimes we have basically said that, well, yes we have erred, but it really wasn't important enough to really look into, so the crimes continue without consequences.
However, in the case of these torture incidents, I think we need to make a statement and hold those responsible accountable, other wise we undercut our own nation's integrity, and we may as well form a long line of people to piss on the graves of our former veterans who fought fascism and imperial aggression, especially those who gave the ultimate sacrifice to uphold our nation's ideals. IMO, it's really that simple in this case.
1: Not too surprising. Had a good idea a lot of this was going on. Another better question might be if we have really heard the worst of what may have happened.
2: Definitely, without a doubt. We prosecuted Germans and Japanese for similar crimes. Are we not to be held accountable in the same circumstances?
3: Most definitely. But unfortunately we have set previous precedents not to totally air our really dirty laundry in public in cases like Johnson's Tonkin Gulf incident, Nixon's undermining of the Paris Peace Conference and then escalating the Vietnam War, Reagan's non-October surprise in the release of the Iranian hostages and later in the Iran-Contra affair, Bush Sr.'s Gulf War I and his tacit approval of Saddam to invade Kuwait in the first place, and Bush Jr.'s Iraq War fiasco (note: I am not trying to keep score of "my" side against "your" side in the total number of atrocities each "party" has committed as I am sure there are many I have missed from each person's perspective, but these have all been American atrocities and not party atrocities). But, because we have not prosecuted our own previous crimes we have basically said that, well, yes we have erred, but it really wasn't important enough to really look into, so the crimes continue without consequences.
However, in the case of these torture incidents, I think we need to make a statement and hold those responsible accountable, other wise we undercut our own nation's integrity, and we may as well form a long line of people to piss on the graves of our former veterans who fought fascism and imperial aggression, especially those who gave the ultimate sacrifice to uphold our nation's ideals. IMO, it's really that simple in this case.
I can see the sentiment about the other memorials as well. What makes this one a little different for me is that a) it was so recent; and b) this is the actual spot those people died on. Either way, I don't understand why people think it's perfectly fine to just act like these sites are just another tourist attraction. I can understand relatives and whatnot going there and having their photos taken (even smiling, I'm not going to judge their personal relationship with these places), but people who are just tourists? That's just disrespectful. Take photos . . but don't act like you're at Six Flags.
Also, I have been informed that my visit there had the water going in one of the two sites, but the other was not (not completed, I guess). For some reason, I remember the one without the water more.
Also, I have been informed that my visit there had the water going in one of the two sites, but the other was not (not completed, I guess). For some reason, I remember the one without the water more.
This is one of the times I am truly ashamed of our government. I am not ashamed that the CIA tortured terrorists captured on the battlefield though I do not condone torture. I am ashamed that our government and our society has once again attempted to legitimize and ethically bound warfare. Our Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government have not known or experienced war with the exception of a few individuals. They attempt though to practice ethical warfare in the name of national defense.
Warfare is not ethical in its nature, it brings out the worst in people. We tolerate it because it keeps our nation the strongest in the world. We willingly send our troops to the killing fields and tell them to neutralize enemies of our nation as long as its morally sound. We tolerate good old fashioned killing, but lose our minds when ethical boundaries are crossed. We welcome drone strikes across the planet and praise our leaders for authorizing attacks against key terror leaders, but shiver at the thought of water boarding. We make movies about killing Bin Laden, calling our President courageous for authorizing it while our Congress throws the CIA under the bus by releasing the methods in which we extracted the information to take out such individuals. We condemn the CIA for their tactics, but our media blasts videos of ISIS beheading aid workers. Our nation and our government does not have the stomach to handle what war really is, its evil in its entirety.
When we attempt to humanize our enemies we give them the benefit of the doubt that they are morally sound human beings. We then entitle them to civil rights we afford our own citizens, not realizing that we find no ethical dilemma in ending the life of another human being while denouncing the degradation of a living human's life. So as long as we practiced half-hearted warfare we will have half-hearted results and the endless campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan will persist.
What our society can never understand about how the sword of our nation functions is that we have the attitude of "whatever it takes." Does this cross ethical lines? I would say yes, but ethical lines rapidly disappear when bullets are flying or lives are on the line. We once had the stomach to fire bomb Dresden and Tokyo because we wanted the enemy to know the cost of waging war is so intolerable that everything they cherish will burn. In our modern era of warfare we have Washington micromanaging everything to the point that commanders care more about covering their own ass then they do about accomplishing their mission. We have now entered into the era of politically correct warfare, and where our government willingly sends us to far away lands with the mission to "protect America" but at the same time gives us so many rules to follow that we radically decrease our chances of winning. What the hell do Pelosi and Obama know about war? Have they once seen the brutality of the enemies we fight against up close and in person? Hell no! I have seen up close in person what groups like the Taliban, AQ, and ISIS do to their victims and I have no problem with those animals getting tortured. What is so intolerable about water boarding versus shooting a dude in the face? The person doing both has to live with what they have done for the rest of their lives, they carry the emotional scars of the evil of warfare they witnessed. Its easy for Washington to play the moral song when looking at the situation through their rose colored glasses. Its not their brothers' lives on the line. They are not the ones who have to live with the emotional scars of warfare for a lifetime, but they are the ones who send us to deal with the evils of this world.
Though I would never want to torture someone, I would do it in a heartbeat if it meant protecting the ones I love. Why is government sanctioned killing ok, but not torture? Killing is more humane than torture? Now that is grey ethical line nobody wants to talk about. Collateral damage of drone strikes is ok, but waterboarding is not? We either need to man up and admit waging war is a dirty and disgusting business or then avoid it all together. We as a species witnessed what happens when governments attempt to make war "gentlemanly," the Europeans slaughtered their youth in the name of noble warfare. Looks like we are willing to go back down that path.
Warfare is not ethical in its nature, it brings out the worst in people. We tolerate it because it keeps our nation the strongest in the world. We willingly send our troops to the killing fields and tell them to neutralize enemies of our nation as long as its morally sound. We tolerate good old fashioned killing, but lose our minds when ethical boundaries are crossed. We welcome drone strikes across the planet and praise our leaders for authorizing attacks against key terror leaders, but shiver at the thought of water boarding. We make movies about killing Bin Laden, calling our President courageous for authorizing it while our Congress throws the CIA under the bus by releasing the methods in which we extracted the information to take out such individuals. We condemn the CIA for their tactics, but our media blasts videos of ISIS beheading aid workers. Our nation and our government does not have the stomach to handle what war really is, its evil in its entirety.
When we attempt to humanize our enemies we give them the benefit of the doubt that they are morally sound human beings. We then entitle them to civil rights we afford our own citizens, not realizing that we find no ethical dilemma in ending the life of another human being while denouncing the degradation of a living human's life. So as long as we practiced half-hearted warfare we will have half-hearted results and the endless campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan will persist.
What our society can never understand about how the sword of our nation functions is that we have the attitude of "whatever it takes." Does this cross ethical lines? I would say yes, but ethical lines rapidly disappear when bullets are flying or lives are on the line. We once had the stomach to fire bomb Dresden and Tokyo because we wanted the enemy to know the cost of waging war is so intolerable that everything they cherish will burn. In our modern era of warfare we have Washington micromanaging everything to the point that commanders care more about covering their own ass then they do about accomplishing their mission. We have now entered into the era of politically correct warfare, and where our government willingly sends us to far away lands with the mission to "protect America" but at the same time gives us so many rules to follow that we radically decrease our chances of winning. What the hell do Pelosi and Obama know about war? Have they once seen the brutality of the enemies we fight against up close and in person? Hell no! I have seen up close in person what groups like the Taliban, AQ, and ISIS do to their victims and I have no problem with those animals getting tortured. What is so intolerable about water boarding versus shooting a dude in the face? The person doing both has to live with what they have done for the rest of their lives, they carry the emotional scars of the evil of warfare they witnessed. Its easy for Washington to play the moral song when looking at the situation through their rose colored glasses. Its not their brothers' lives on the line. They are not the ones who have to live with the emotional scars of warfare for a lifetime, but they are the ones who send us to deal with the evils of this world.
Though I would never want to torture someone, I would do it in a heartbeat if it meant protecting the ones I love. Why is government sanctioned killing ok, but not torture? Killing is more humane than torture? Now that is grey ethical line nobody wants to talk about. Collateral damage of drone strikes is ok, but waterboarding is not? We either need to man up and admit waging war is a dirty and disgusting business or then avoid it all together. We as a species witnessed what happens when governments attempt to make war "gentlemanly," the Europeans slaughtered their youth in the name of noble warfare. Looks like we are willing to go back down that path.
Couple of thoughts.
It isn't just our nation that has had conversations about the ethics of war. It is a conversation that has gone on for centuries. Augustine of Hippo wrote extensively about "just war," for example. And even if it doesn't ever result in a clear cut answer (and I don't think it will or can), it is a conversation that I think is important if for no other reason than it keeps us as a nation from becoming too comfortable with the violence and bloodshed of war.
I would challenge you a little bit - albeit from an admitted position of no actual combat or military experience - on the idea that a refusal to resort to the kinds of things described in the CIA report means "half-hearted" warfare. Did the Allies wage half-hearted warfare during WWII? Not at all, and yet I don't recall ever seeing or hearing about systematic torture being a part of how the Allies fought. It is a fallacy, I believe, to assume that torture is a necessary element of war.
I also struggle with the question of the efficacy of torture. There are numerous schools of thought that suggest that torture, at least eventually, becomes counterproductive as the victims will begin to say whatever they think will stop the torture - regardless of the truth or falsehood. Does torture of the kind described in the CIA report actually produce actionable intelligence?
Further, I find it interesting that, in your response, you name two politicians - Obama and Pelosi - who you clearly disagree with and oppose. Yet you say nothing about John McCain, a well-known conservative who has experienced much of the things you mention. This is not an issue that should be easily turned to partisanship.
To lay my cards on the table completely, I confess that I am uncertain about much of this. I have a firm belief that torture violates God's intent for creation in myriad ways. Yet we do not live in the perfect creation that God intended. These two truths contribute greatly to my uncertainty - nothwithstanding the practical, legal, and political aspects of the problem.
It isn't just our nation that has had conversations about the ethics of war. It is a conversation that has gone on for centuries. Augustine of Hippo wrote extensively about "just war," for example. And even if it doesn't ever result in a clear cut answer (and I don't think it will or can), it is a conversation that I think is important if for no other reason than it keeps us as a nation from becoming too comfortable with the violence and bloodshed of war.
I would challenge you a little bit - albeit from an admitted position of no actual combat or military experience - on the idea that a refusal to resort to the kinds of things described in the CIA report means "half-hearted" warfare. Did the Allies wage half-hearted warfare during WWII? Not at all, and yet I don't recall ever seeing or hearing about systematic torture being a part of how the Allies fought. It is a fallacy, I believe, to assume that torture is a necessary element of war.
I also struggle with the question of the efficacy of torture. There are numerous schools of thought that suggest that torture, at least eventually, becomes counterproductive as the victims will begin to say whatever they think will stop the torture - regardless of the truth or falsehood. Does torture of the kind described in the CIA report actually produce actionable intelligence?
Further, I find it interesting that, in your response, you name two politicians - Obama and Pelosi - who you clearly disagree with and oppose. Yet you say nothing about John McCain, a well-known conservative who has experienced much of the things you mention. This is not an issue that should be easily turned to partisanship.
To lay my cards on the table completely, I confess that I am uncertain about much of this. I have a firm belief that torture violates God's intent for creation in myriad ways. Yet we do not live in the perfect creation that God intended. These two truths contribute greatly to my uncertainty - nothwithstanding the practical, legal, and political aspects of the problem.
it's wrong and it doesn't work, having said that
I guess I'm more outraged that we paid 80 million dollars to come up with something that damages our reputation AND accomplishes nothing. I mean if there was evidence it actually worked, I could see the utilitarian, greater evil type arguments having merit. That it doesn't work AND we spent so much money on it AND damaged our worldwide reputation...well, other than being able to feel like we hurt some terrorists (and let's be honest, some folks who just got caught up or sold to us), what was the point of the torture program?
It sounds to me like "to make us feel safer." Even though it did nothing to actually make us safer.
I guess I'm more outraged that we paid 80 million dollars to come up with something that damages our reputation AND accomplishes nothing. I mean if there was evidence it actually worked, I could see the utilitarian, greater evil type arguments having merit. That it doesn't work AND we spent so much money on it AND damaged our worldwide reputation...well, other than being able to feel like we hurt some terrorists (and let's be honest, some folks who just got caught up or sold to us), what was the point of the torture program?
It sounds to me like "to make us feel safer." Even though it did nothing to actually make us safer.
with all due respect, you need a history lesson
1. Ethical boundaries in wars is something that has a pretty long history, and it actually started in earnest during the Civil War. Yes folks, it was the US, with the Lieber Code, that really got the Geneva Conventions and Law of War started. It was started by the folks actually in that war because of the atrocities that were present in that war (which neither you, nor I, nor any service member on active duty today has likely seen). So we've been practicing some form of "half-hearted warfare" since more or less our entire time on the global stage. It's seemed to serve us fairly well thus far.
2. Our enemies ARE humans. So are the people that support them, so are the people that tolerate them, so are the people that help them out of fear. They aren't monsters, they aren't demons, they are people. People doing evil things, and people that may need to die because of what they are doing and the threat they pose, no doubt. But they are people. Dehumanizing them may feel good, and there's a certain level of it needed to actually be able to kill them (see all war propaganda by anyone ever). But there's a limit. Has nothing to do with our enemies morals, but our own.
3. We stopped things like fire bombings because we realized that killing women and children and infants indiscriminately was morally wrong. We made these decisions WELL BEFORE Obama or Pelosi were in charge of anything, so your anger there is supremely misplaced. How dare you follow current international AND Federal law President Obama!!
I get it, from the ground level, being forced to follow rules your enemy may not seems unfair. Sometimes, taking the high ground and keeping your morals requires that.
1. Ethical boundaries in wars is something that has a pretty long history, and it actually started in earnest during the Civil War. Yes folks, it was the US, with the Lieber Code, that really got the Geneva Conventions and Law of War started. It was started by the folks actually in that war because of the atrocities that were present in that war (which neither you, nor I, nor any service member on active duty today has likely seen). So we've been practicing some form of "half-hearted warfare" since more or less our entire time on the global stage. It's seemed to serve us fairly well thus far.
2. Our enemies ARE humans. So are the people that support them, so are the people that tolerate them, so are the people that help them out of fear. They aren't monsters, they aren't demons, they are people. People doing evil things, and people that may need to die because of what they are doing and the threat they pose, no doubt. But they are people. Dehumanizing them may feel good, and there's a certain level of it needed to actually be able to kill them (see all war propaganda by anyone ever). But there's a limit. Has nothing to do with our enemies morals, but our own.
3. We stopped things like fire bombings because we realized that killing women and children and infants indiscriminately was morally wrong. We made these decisions WELL BEFORE Obama or Pelosi were in charge of anything, so your anger there is supremely misplaced. How dare you follow current international AND Federal law President Obama!!
I get it, from the ground level, being forced to follow rules your enemy may not seems unfair. Sometimes, taking the high ground and keeping your morals requires that.
probably
The TSA probably does more for show than actual prevention, having said that though the implications of the two programs make the TSA a much more palatable "show" except perhaps for the money possibly wasted (although there is some value to public peace of mind I suppose).
The TSA probably does more for show than actual prevention, having said that though the implications of the two programs make the TSA a much more palatable "show" except perhaps for the money possibly wasted (although there is some value to public peace of mind I suppose).
there's no evidence that it worked
To work, you'd need to show that you got actual, true actionable intelligence.
If it wasn't true it didn't work, and especially if it wasn't true anymore than chance.
If it wasn't actionable it didn't work either. Intelligence does you nothing if there's nothing you can do with it.
The unasked question is, is there another way to get actionable intelligence that does work and/or is better than torture?
If the answer is yes, then you should be doing that for both practical and moral reasons.
Morally, you need actual evidence it works to even make a case for torture, you can't go with "we'll never know."
To work, you'd need to show that you got actual, true actionable intelligence.
If it wasn't true it didn't work, and especially if it wasn't true anymore than chance.
If it wasn't actionable it didn't work either. Intelligence does you nothing if there's nothing you can do with it.
The unasked question is, is there another way to get actionable intelligence that does work and/or is better than torture?
If the answer is yes, then you should be doing that for both practical and moral reasons.
Morally, you need actual evidence it works to even make a case for torture, you can't go with "we'll never know."
sigh
1. you apparently didn't read what I posted about why your "we don't know" argument is specious, even if we didn't know.
2. we actually do know because there actually is evidence it didn't work; the complete absence of any evidence it did work. You know, actual intelligence that led to actual things we did to stop something bad from happening? That's the whole point of the report, there's no evidence that any "intelligence" gathered through torture was either a) true, or b) acted upon in any useful way. They looked, a lot, there is none.
1. you apparently didn't read what I posted about why your "we don't know" argument is specious, even if we didn't know.
2. we actually do know because there actually is evidence it didn't work; the complete absence of any evidence it did work. You know, actual intelligence that led to actual things we did to stop something bad from happening? That's the whole point of the report, there's no evidence that any "intelligence" gathered through torture was either a) true, or b) acted upon in any useful way. They looked, a lot, there is none.
I too found it odd to see people posing at the south pool (which was again the only one on when we visited). Inside the museum, no one was posing, particularly in the historical exhibition, which I thought was particularly well done. The history behind the construction of the WTC towers was very interesting, but the memorial exhibitions were very heavy.
I drew comparisons to the Nagasaki memorial in Japan. As an American touring there, it was one of the most awkward places I'd ever been. That said, I don't know if Nagasaki is as emotional today as the WTC site was for me simply because I can remember everything from that day so vividly. Interestingly, I was stationed in Japan at the time...
There were a couple of occasions where I was near-tears in the historical exhibition and once at the memorial pools. It was a far more emotional visit for me than the Pearl Harbor/Arizona memorial.
I drew comparisons to the Nagasaki memorial in Japan. As an American touring there, it was one of the most awkward places I'd ever been. That said, I don't know if Nagasaki is as emotional today as the WTC site was for me simply because I can remember everything from that day so vividly. Interestingly, I was stationed in Japan at the time...
There were a couple of occasions where I was near-tears in the historical exhibition and once at the memorial pools. It was a far more emotional visit for me than the Pearl Harbor/Arizona memorial.
Re: It's only fair to point out that the CIA Report .....
While true, it had the support of some Republicans, notably John McCain.
While true, it had the support of some Republicans, notably John McCain.
Re: there's no evidence that it worked
I think some of the techniques are effective, waterboarding for example. I also agree that waterboarding is pretty much torture.
What appalled me, and what I find utterly indefensible, is the coffin-box treatment and the rectal feeding/hydrating. I don't see how anyone thinks that's OK. That's just something where a couple guys were bored and had too much time to think up stuff to do to people. I doubt anyone actually thought it would be persuasive.
I think some of the techniques are effective, waterboarding for example. I also agree that waterboarding is pretty much torture.
What appalled me, and what I find utterly indefensible, is the coffin-box treatment and the rectal feeding/hydrating. I don't see how anyone thinks that's OK. That's just something where a couple guys were bored and had too much time to think up stuff to do to people. I doubt anyone actually thought it would be persuasive.
Re: with all due respect, you need a history lesson
Very well said on all accounts. The actions of our human enemies do not and should not give license to act despicably ourselves.
Re: except doesnt the report say
Consider the source. I'm not saying waterboarding is definitely effective, but when a group of Democratic Senators set out to prove the CIA tortured and that torture is ineffective, in other words determining the outcome before the research is done, I don't consider that source definitive.
It is my opinion that waterboarding would be potentially effective whereas leaving someone in a box or feeding them rectally does nothing but dehumanize them.
In either case, information gained through means such as these, and possibly including waterboarding, could be suspect because at some point, people will say anything to make it stop.
Consider the source. I'm not saying waterboarding is definitely effective, but when a group of Democratic Senators set out to prove the CIA tortured and that torture is ineffective, in other words determining the outcome before the research is done, I don't consider that source definitive.
It is my opinion that waterboarding would be potentially effective whereas leaving someone in a box or feeding them rectally does nothing but dehumanize them.
In either case, information gained through means such as these, and possibly including waterboarding, could be suspect because at some point, people will say anything to make it stop.
Did I ever once say I am an advocate of torture? "Just war" is such grey term that anyone can really define war as just to their own parameters.
So torturing is somehow worse than the fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo?
Well to answer that, I cannot because that information is still classified. But well known Democrat Leon Panetta was on record saying that torture did extract actionable intelligence in the post 9/11 era though he did not agree with practice.
I left out John McCain because while his experience is noble and very real, it also does have a profound influence on his train of thought. At this point in time I really don't know that to think about him, denouncing torture but at the same advocating more involvement in Syria. I am mad about this because this report really does nothing, It happened, so we can either choose to relive the past of move on, admit we crossed the ethical line, and leave it behind us. Smearing it all over the media nearly a decade after the program was on the way out accomplishes what? It is 100% partisan.
War is based upon sin and that is why I cannot fathom people getting upset about the evil that comes from warfare Are we some sort of noble saints fighting for God's word? No we are fighting for our own devices based upon the evil, sinful world we live in. So this ever continuous moral high ground we think we hold because somehow we kill in a more ethical way makes us better than the world is something to be proud of? We have more blood on our hands than most nations in the world combined, yet we are appalled that at one point in time our government used torture as a means for gathering intelligence?
Re: with all due respect, you need a history lesson
1. It predates the Civil War, ethics on the battlefield stem from the Feudal Era, so I think I am good as far as my history goes. Has served us well? How many enemies have we faced that follow the Geneva Convention in the last 75 years? Korea was a draw. Vietnam is political disaster at the expense of 78,000 Americans. Desert Storm, treated the symptom but didn't take care of the actual disease. Afghanistan, 13 years later the country is still in shambles and Taliban control major regions (I could look out a tower and see the Taliban less than 5km from the base I was on, yeah country is headed in the right direction). Iraq, well the current situation speaks for itself. We love to dabble all over the globe on our ethical crusade saying we are somehow fighting more morally than our foes?
2. I said those things exactly for that reason. There is the reality on the battlefield and there is the perspective of those writing laws instead of pulling triggers.
3. Wait so drone strikes killing women and children are ok with you? Though the collateral damage is less, it still exists. I cannot count how many instances of mistaken identity there have been that have resulted with women and children being killing in Iraq and Afghanistan alone. Does not matter if its a firebomb or JDAM, it still happens. So as long as its on a smaller scale its ok?
This is also why so many of the clandestine units in our nation's past have been more effective than their conventional forces on the battlefield. That is why many of them in the past have never been recognized by the US Government.
My point all boils down to why? Why do people get so bent out of shape about when they hear of evil acts being committed in something that is evil-based like war. Do I advocate torture, NO. Do I advocate cruelty on the battlefield, NO. But rather I understand when humans are reduced to nothing but the evils of this world they frequently resort to evil. So if our country is going to dabble in war, we have to be willing to handle the byproducts of war.
This post was edited on 12/15 8:28 PM by Stairwayto7
1. It predates the Civil War, ethics on the battlefield stem from the Feudal Era, so I think I am good as far as my history goes. Has served us well? How many enemies have we faced that follow the Geneva Convention in the last 75 years? Korea was a draw. Vietnam is political disaster at the expense of 78,000 Americans. Desert Storm, treated the symptom but didn't take care of the actual disease. Afghanistan, 13 years later the country is still in shambles and Taliban control major regions (I could look out a tower and see the Taliban less than 5km from the base I was on, yeah country is headed in the right direction). Iraq, well the current situation speaks for itself. We love to dabble all over the globe on our ethical crusade saying we are somehow fighting more morally than our foes?
2. I said those things exactly for that reason. There is the reality on the battlefield and there is the perspective of those writing laws instead of pulling triggers.
3. Wait so drone strikes killing women and children are ok with you? Though the collateral damage is less, it still exists. I cannot count how many instances of mistaken identity there have been that have resulted with women and children being killing in Iraq and Afghanistan alone. Does not matter if its a firebomb or JDAM, it still happens. So as long as its on a smaller scale its ok?
This is also why so many of the clandestine units in our nation's past have been more effective than their conventional forces on the battlefield. That is why many of them in the past have never been recognized by the US Government.
My point all boils down to why? Why do people get so bent out of shape about when they hear of evil acts being committed in something that is evil-based like war. Do I advocate torture, NO. Do I advocate cruelty on the battlefield, NO. But rather I understand when humans are reduced to nothing but the evils of this world they frequently resort to evil. So if our country is going to dabble in war, we have to be willing to handle the byproducts of war.
This post was edited on 12/15 8:28 PM by Stairwayto7
Re: we actually prosecuted people for water boarding
Your point? The winners in war have the luxury of sweeping their dirt under a rug and the losers are either dead or punished. Are you claiming that at no point in time did Allied Forces resort to "unconventional forms of interrogation?
Re: there's no evidence that it worked
But of course some out there still advocate there was actionable intelligence gathered. However it is unlikely exact details will be declassified for many years to come. Former CIA director and Obama appointee Leon Panetta has asserted that it was effective.
I did not mean to suggest that you were an advocate of torture. I do get the impression that you are defending its use - at least in some cases. And that's fine with me - I think it's important that both sides of an issue be intelligently discussed.
"So torturing is somehow worse than the fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo?"
You have a point here. I resort back to my belief that neither is ultimately okay, even if you could argue persuasively that both are "necessary."
I agree completely about making this such a media issue - to a point. The media serves well at bringing these things to our attention. I would have no problem "leaving it behind us" if, in fact, we were willing to come out and say, "You know what, we screwed up. We went too far and we will put systems in place to try to prevent that in the future."
I guess what I'm ultimately getting at, and I hope you'd agree with, is that I would hope we will always be appalled by the fact that our government uses torture (and I'm under no illusions that the incidents in the report are the only incidents in our history), even as we acknowledge that there might be instances where it is warranted.
"So torturing is somehow worse than the fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo?"
You have a point here. I resort back to my belief that neither is ultimately okay, even if you could argue persuasively that both are "necessary."
I agree completely about making this such a media issue - to a point. The media serves well at bringing these things to our attention. I would have no problem "leaving it behind us" if, in fact, we were willing to come out and say, "You know what, we screwed up. We went too far and we will put systems in place to try to prevent that in the future."
I guess what I'm ultimately getting at, and I hope you'd agree with, is that I would hope we will always be appalled by the fact that our government uses torture (and I'm under no illusions that the incidents in the report are the only incidents in our history), even as we acknowledge that there might be instances where it is warranted.
Sorry, rectal feeding and hydrating, keeping people in coffins, are not byproducts of war; they are byproducts of sick f$&@s.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Stairwayto7 you are one of the more (the few?) thoughtful posters here. I get what you are saying but have a question.
Where in your "all's fair in war" philosophy would you place terrorists taking over a school and executing hundreds of young teenagers who are family of military, in revenge for drone killings targeting combatants, or for whatever reason they end up giving?
Is that a legitimate thing to do, one whose morals should not be questioned?
Where in your "all's fair in war" philosophy would you place terrorists taking over a school and executing hundreds of young teenagers who are family of military, in revenge for drone killings targeting combatants, or for whatever reason they end up giving?
Is that a legitimate thing to do, one whose morals should not be questioned?
Where would you place the use of drones killing innocent children/families who happen to be near the drone targets?
Some of you wanting a "clean and tidy" war need to get a grip.
Well, that's why I asked. That's why I mentioned the drone strikes. I'm disgusted by what happened in Pakistan today, which used 100% young innocent victims for retribution against their military families...but willing to look at the big picture too.
I'm not against the drone warfare, but still, the moral (and strategic) perils of the drone operation are worth discussing. What's the actual collateral damage percentage, i.e. % of casualties that are non-combatant casualties? Many would agree it can't effectively be zero. Would it be OK at 99%? Probably not. 50%? 10%? What's tolerable?
If you (any poster) are in favor of the drone operation if 99% of the casualties are non-combatants, it would be interesting to hear your rationale.
I'm not against the drone warfare, but still, the moral (and strategic) perils of the drone operation are worth discussing. What's the actual collateral damage percentage, i.e. % of casualties that are non-combatant casualties? Many would agree it can't effectively be zero. Would it be OK at 99%? Probably not. 50%? 10%? What's tolerable?
If you (any poster) are in favor of the drone operation if 99% of the casualties are non-combatants, it would be interesting to hear your rationale.
Re: I'm stating a fact
Why do we have to comply with the Geneva conventionn here? These aren't soldiers we captured they are terrorists.
Did they drop leaflets over the twin towers before they levelled them? Sorry but if I were in control of the whole Middle East debacle I'd make the whole area one huge glass bowl. We can drill through glass to get to the oil over there.
Why do we have to comply with the Geneva conventionn here? These aren't soldiers we captured they are terrorists.
Did they drop leaflets over the twin towers before they levelled them? Sorry but if I were in control of the whole Middle East debacle I'd make the whole area one huge glass bowl. We can drill through glass to get to the oil over there.
Latest posts
-
-
A Revolution of Common Sense - A Seminal Shift in Values- Latest: New Pal Boiler
-
