Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: torture report (2 Viewers)

[jonessed]

Also with regard to your comment about American citizen- this represents the same disconnect in your thinking, IMO, which you have about illegal immigrants. There is no magic thing about American citizens that separate is from everyone else. It is our ideals that make this nation better, not our citizenry. If we give up those ideals then we are no better than anyone else. Any rights we deserve as citizens are rights that everyone deserves, which is one reason why anyone who comes here should have the right to stay.

Culture, language, education, etc. You don't think that Americans (or those from any country from that matter) have fundamental differences? That seems really odd. Could you unpack that?

Of course there are differences. But my point is, they don't come with birth. A non-American, even a former terrorist, could come to this country, embrace the ideals that make this country great, and thereafter be a better American than many of the citizens who are born here. The ideals that make us great are universal: freedom of thought, freedom of action, a democratically elected republican government limited by a Constitution, and not least open to all who desire to come. If any nation on Earth were to accept these 4 ideals as fundamental, that nation would be more American than we are (since at the current time we unfortunately are not willing to abide by the 4th ideal I stated.)

I'm still confused. Are you saying we should invite terrorists into our society and try to make them Americans?

You seem to be trying to tie NSA spying on citizens, CIA torturing terrorists, and illegal immigration together into one argument and it's not making a lick of sense (for obvious reasons).

 

[timschochet]

Also with regard to your comment about American citizen- this represents the same disconnect in your thinking, IMO, which you have about illegal immigrants. There is no magic thing about American citizens that separate is from everyone else. It is our ideals that make this nation better, not our citizenry. If we give up those ideals then we are no better than anyone else. Any rights we deserve as citizens are rights that everyone deserves, which is one reason why anyone who comes here should have the right to stay.

Culture, language, education, etc. You don't think that Americans (or those from any country from that matter) have fundamental differences? That seems really odd. Could you unpack that?

Of course there are differences. But my point is, they don't come with birth. A non-American, even a former terrorist, could come to this country, embrace the ideals that make this country great, and thereafter be a better American than many of the citizens who are born here. The ideals that make us great are universal: freedom of thought, freedom of action, a democratically elected republican government limited by a Constitution, and not least open to all who desire to come. If any nation on Earth were to accept these 4 ideals as fundamental, that nation would be more American than we are (since at the current time we unfortunately are not willing to abide by the 4th ideal I stated.)

I'm still confused. Are you saying we should invite terrorists into our society and try to make them Americans?

You seem to be trying to tie NSA spying on citizens, CIA torturing terrorists, and illegal immigration together into one argument and it's not making a lick of sense (for obvious reasons).

It was not my intent to add illegal immigration into the argument. I did so because Strike keeps differentiating between American citizens and non-American citizens as if the latter were fair game for anything, and as if humane rights should only be accorded to the former. Obviously I disagree with that assumption.

As to your question, I was simply making the point that to be an American is not a question of citizenship; it is a question of idealism. Anyone who shares our ideals is an American. Anyone who does not is not an American, even if they were born in Indiana.

 

[timschochet]

Also with regard to your comment about American citizen- this represents the same disconnect in your thinking, IMO, which you have about illegal immigrants. There is no magic thing about American citizens that separate is from everyone else. It is our ideals that make this nation better, not our citizenry. If we give up those ideals then we are no better than anyone else. Any rights we deserve as citizens are rights that everyone deserves, which is one reason why anyone who comes here should have the right to stay.

Yes Tim, we clearly have a difference of opinion regarding citizens versus non-citizens. Because, you know, one are citizens and the others are not. Funny how our laws make that differentiation as well. You would have us make no distinction between citizens and non-citizens? So anyone could walk across our border and collect welfare. Is that your stance? Seriously?

No it isn't. And by even asking the question, you demonstrate your lack of knowledge as to what a "right" means. No one has a right to welfare. Welfare is a privilege that is given to American citizens below a certain income level. Non-American citizens have no claim on that privilege, and that's how it should be. But non-American citizens do have certain rights- the right to be tried of a crime as an American citizen is, for example, the right not to be forcibly removed from their homes without cause, etc. And the right not to be tortured.

For the purposes of this discussion, our government also has the right, and at times the duty, to kill enemy combatants in time of war. This extends to American citizens if they are engaged in war against the United States, including acts of terrorism. That's why both you and Rand Paul are so terribly wrong on that issue.

Don't American Citizens have the right to be tried, or at least have charges levied against them, before their government kills them? Yet for some reason you are ok with that. Not a lot of consistency from you.

Also with regard to your comment about American citizen- this represents the same disconnect in your thinking, IMO, which you have about illegal immigrants. There is no magic thing about American citizens that separate is from everyone else. It is our ideals that make this nation better, not our citizenry. If we give up those ideals then we are no better than anyone else. Any rights we deserve as citizens are rights that everyone deserves, which is one reason why anyone who comes here should have the right to stay.

Yes Tim, we clearly have a difference of opinion regarding citizens versus non-citizens. Because, you know, one are citizens and the others are not. Funny how our laws make that differentiation as well. You would have us make no distinction between citizens and non-citizens? So anyone could walk across our border and collect welfare. Is that your stance? Seriously?

No it isn't. And by even asking the question, you demonstrate your lack of knowledge as to what a "right" means. No one has a right to welfare. Welfare is a privilege that is given to American citizens below a certain income level. Non-American citizens have no claim on that privilege, and that's how it should be. But non-American citizens do have certain rights- the right to be tried of a crime as an American citizen is, for example, the right not to be forcibly removed from their homes without cause, etc. And the right not to be tortured.

For the purposes of this discussion, our government also has the right, and at times the duty, to kill enemy combatants in time of war. This extends to American citizens if they are engaged in war against the United States, including acts of terrorism. That's why both you and Rand Paul are so terribly wrong on that issue.

Don't American Citizens have the right to be tried, or at least have charges levied against them, before their government kills them? Yet for some reason you are ok with that. Not a lot of consistency from you.

Not necessarily in a time of war, when those citizens are considered enemy combatants. My answer is no.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Also with regard to your comment about American citizen- this represents the same disconnect in your thinking, IMO, which you have about illegal immigrants. There is no magic thing about American citizens that separate is from everyone else. It is our ideals that make this nation better, not our citizenry. If we give up those ideals then we are no better than anyone else. Any rights we deserve as citizens are rights that everyone deserves, which is one reason why anyone who comes here should have the right to stay.

Culture, language, education, etc. You don't think that Americans (or those from any country from that matter) have fundamental differences? That seems really odd. Could you unpack that?

Of course there are differences. But my point is, they don't come with birth. A non-American, even a former terrorist, could come to this country, embrace the ideals that make this country great, and thereafter be a better American than many of the citizens who are born here. The ideals that make us great are universal: freedom of thought, freedom of action, a democratically elected republican government limited by a Constitution, and not least open to all who desire to come. If any nation on Earth were to accept these 4 ideals as fundamental, that nation would be more American than we are (since at the current time we unfortunately are not willing to abide by the 4th ideal I stated.)

I'm still confused. Are you saying we should invite terrorists into our society and try to make them Americans?

You seem to be trying to tie NSA spying on citizens, CIA torturing terrorists, and illegal immigration together into one argument and it's not making a lick of sense (for obvious reasons).

It was not my intent to add illegal immigration into the argument. I did so because Strike keeps differentiating between American citizens and non-American citizens as if the latter were fair game for anything, and as if humane rights should only be accorded to the former. Obviously I disagree with that assumption.

As to your question, I was simply making the point that to be an American is not a question of citizenship; it is a question of idealism. Anyone who shares our ideals is an American. Anyone who does not is not an American, even if they were born in Indiana.

Are you sure they want to be....I'm thinking the guy in Italy who shares our ideals would still want to be an Italian.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Also with regard to your comment about American citizen- this represents the same disconnect in your thinking, IMO, which you have about illegal immigrants. There is no magic thing about American citizens that separate is from everyone else. It is our ideals that make this nation better, not our citizenry. If we give up those ideals then we are no better than anyone else. Any rights we deserve as citizens are rights that everyone deserves, which is one reason why anyone who comes here should have the right to stay.

Yes Tim, we clearly have a difference of opinion regarding citizens versus non-citizens. Because, you know, one are citizens and the others are not. Funny how our laws make that differentiation as well. You would have us make no distinction between citizens and non-citizens? So anyone could walk across our border and collect welfare. Is that your stance? Seriously?

No it isn't. And by even asking the question, you demonstrate your lack of knowledge as to what a "right" means. No one has a right to welfare. Welfare is a privilege that is given to American citizens below a certain income level. Non-American citizens have no claim on that privilege, and that's how it should be. But non-American citizens do have certain rights- the right to be tried of a crime as an American citizen is, for example, the right not to be forcibly removed from their homes without cause, etc. And the right not to be tortured.

For the purposes of this discussion, our government also has the right, and at times the duty, to kill enemy combatants in time of war. This extends to American citizens if they are engaged in war against the United States, including acts of terrorism. That's why both you and Rand Paul are so terribly wrong on that issue.

Don't American Citizens have the right to be tried, or at least have charges levied against them, before their government kills them? Yet for some reason you are ok with that. Not a lot of consistency from you.

Also with regard to your comment about American citizen- this represents the same disconnect in your thinking, IMO, which you have about illegal immigrants. There is no magic thing about American citizens that separate is from everyone else. It is our ideals that make this nation better, not our citizenry. If we give up those ideals then we are no better than anyone else. Any rights we deserve as citizens are rights that everyone deserves, which is one reason why anyone who comes here should have the right to stay.

Yes Tim, we clearly have a difference of opinion regarding citizens versus non-citizens. Because, you know, one are citizens and the others are not. Funny how our laws make that differentiation as well. You would have us make no distinction between citizens and non-citizens? So anyone could walk across our border and collect welfare. Is that your stance? Seriously?

No it isn't. And by even asking the question, you demonstrate your lack of knowledge as to what a "right" means. No one has a right to welfare. Welfare is a privilege that is given to American citizens below a certain income level. Non-American citizens have no claim on that privilege, and that's how it should be. But non-American citizens do have certain rights- the right to be tried of a crime as an American citizen is, for example, the right not to be forcibly removed from their homes without cause, etc. And the right not to be tortured.

For the purposes of this discussion, our government also has the right, and at times the duty, to kill enemy combatants in time of war. This extends to American citizens if they are engaged in war against the United States, including acts of terrorism. That's why both you and Rand Paul are so terribly wrong on that issue.

Don't American Citizens have the right to be tried, or at least have charges levied against them, before their government kills them? Yet for some reason you are ok with that. Not a lot of consistency from you.

Not necessarily in a time of war, when those citizens are considered enemy combatants. My answer is no.

Tim,

1) Are you saying that every American we've killed without due process has been declared an enemy combatant?

2) You're wrong. It's pathetic that you value the lives of people who aren't American, either by being a citizen or your more bizarre definition that anyone who shares our ideals is by default American, over the lives of actual Americans. And I don't care whether they're currently considered terrorists, or anything else. The WORST thing we can do as a country is kill our own without even indicting them for a crime. And if you think that's OK under any circumstances you're a bigger ******* than I already think you are.

 

[timschochet]

Not sure if this was discussed yet but what's worst - Our drone program or the enhanced interrogation tactics used? Drone program has killed hundreds of men, women and children without due process.

IMO, drones are a legitimate weapon in wartime. Torture is not.

I understand that a lot of people come to this same conclusion, but it does seem a bit off kilter. The idea that it's morally acceptable to drop bombs that are known to kill innocents (as collateral damage), but not morally acceptable to treat certain-people-who-are-most-certainly-not-innocent inhumanely, seems a bit... odd. Seems like somehow, society has gotten its priorities off the tracks.

I don't think it's off kilter at all. Again, we need to go back to the Nuremberg War Crimes trials, and the Japanese War Crimes trials. At those trials, we developed certain principles of moral behavior in wartime. We determined that torture was a war crime, and those who committed it were subject to punishment. We also determined that strategic bombing was NOT a war crime; otherwise, we would have had to prosecute ourselves for the bombings of Dresden, Tokyo, and of course Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Back in college, I attended several lectures on the subject of strategic bombing by Daniel Ellsberg, the 1970s version of Edward Snowden. I got to meet with him and argue with him. He was an absolutely brilliant guy. His premise was that all strategic bombing was immoral (indeed his reasoning for releasing the Pentagon Papers was because he believed that the Vietnam War was immoral BECAUSE of strategic bombing.) I disagreed with him then and still do, but his main reasoning was not that innocent people are killed in strategic bombing, but that far too many innocent people were killed- the ratio was the immoral part.

Now this was long before drones were invented- mid-80s. But the fact is that drones are far more precise than strategic bombing every was. Prior to drone strikes, any military bombing would take out hundreds or thousands of innocents, sometimes more. Drones do kill civilians, but far far less. Based on Ellsberg's reasoning back then, he should see drones as a far more humane weapon than what we had before (as indeed I do). But of course he doesn't. Ellsberg in recent years has given interviews condemning drones as worse than anything we've used before with the exception of the nukes dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I find that attitude to be inconsistent with his previous remarks.

 

[jonessed]

Also with regard to your comment about American citizen- this represents the same disconnect in your thinking, IMO, which you have about illegal immigrants. There is no magic thing about American citizens that separate is from everyone else. It is our ideals that make this nation better, not our citizenry. If we give up those ideals then we are no better than anyone else. Any rights we deserve as citizens are rights that everyone deserves, which is one reason why anyone who comes here should have the right to stay.

Culture, language, education, etc. You don't think that Americans (or those from any country from that matter) have fundamental differences? That seems really odd. Could you unpack that?

Of course there are differences. But my point is, they don't come with birth. A non-American, even a former terrorist, could come to this country, embrace the ideals that make this country great, and thereafter be a better American than many of the citizens who are born here. The ideals that make us great are universal: freedom of thought, freedom of action, a democratically elected republican government limited by a Constitution, and not least open to all who desire to come. If any nation on Earth were to accept these 4 ideals as fundamental, that nation would be more American than we are (since at the current time we unfortunately are not willing to abide by the 4th ideal I stated.)

I'm still confused. Are you saying we should invite terrorists into our society and try to make them Americans?You seem to be trying to tie NSA spying on citizens, CIA torturing terrorists, and illegal immigration together into one argument and it's not making a lick of sense (for obvious reasons).

It was not my intent to add illegal immigration into the argument. I did so because Strike keeps differentiating between American citizens and non-American citizens as if the latter were fair game for anything, and as if humane rights should only be accorded to the former. Obviously I disagree with that assumption.As to your question, I was simply making the point that to be an American is not a question of citizenship; it is a question of idealism. Anyone who shares our ideals is an American. Anyone who does not is not an American, even if they were born in Indiana.

I give up. You still aren't making any sense.

 

[timschochet]

Also with regard to your comment about American citizen- this represents the same disconnect in your thinking, IMO, which you have about illegal immigrants. There is no magic thing about American citizens that separate is from everyone else. It is our ideals that make this nation better, not our citizenry. If we give up those ideals then we are no better than anyone else. Any rights we deserve as citizens are rights that everyone deserves, which is one reason why anyone who comes here should have the right to stay.

Yes Tim, we clearly have a difference of opinion regarding citizens versus non-citizens. Because, you know, one are citizens and the others are not. Funny how our laws make that differentiation as well. You would have us make no distinction between citizens and non-citizens? So anyone could walk across our border and collect welfare. Is that your stance? Seriously?

No it isn't. And by even asking the question, you demonstrate your lack of knowledge as to what a "right" means. No one has a right to welfare. Welfare is a privilege that is given to American citizens below a certain income level. Non-American citizens have no claim on that privilege, and that's how it should be. But non-American citizens do have certain rights- the right to be tried of a crime as an American citizen is, for example, the right not to be forcibly removed from their homes without cause, etc. And the right not to be tortured.

For the purposes of this discussion, our government also has the right, and at times the duty, to kill enemy combatants in time of war. This extends to American citizens if they are engaged in war against the United States, including acts of terrorism. That's why both you and Rand Paul are so terribly wrong on that issue.

Don't American Citizens have the right to be tried, or at least have charges levied against them, before their government kills them? Yet for some reason you are ok with that. Not a lot of consistency from you.

Also with regard to your comment about American citizen- this represents the same disconnect in your thinking, IMO, which you have about illegal immigrants. There is no magic thing about American citizens that separate is from everyone else. It is our ideals that make this nation better, not our citizenry. If we give up those ideals then we are no better than anyone else. Any rights we deserve as citizens are rights that everyone deserves, which is one reason why anyone who comes here should have the right to stay.

Yes Tim, we clearly have a difference of opinion regarding citizens versus non-citizens. Because, you know, one are citizens and the others are not. Funny how our laws make that differentiation as well. You would have us make no distinction between citizens and non-citizens? So anyone could walk across our border and collect welfare. Is that your stance? Seriously?

No it isn't. And by even asking the question, you demonstrate your lack of knowledge as to what a "right" means. No one has a right to welfare. Welfare is a privilege that is given to American citizens below a certain income level. Non-American citizens have no claim on that privilege, and that's how it should be. But non-American citizens do have certain rights- the right to be tried of a crime as an American citizen is, for example, the right not to be forcibly removed from their homes without cause, etc. And the right not to be tortured.

For the purposes of this discussion, our government also has the right, and at times the duty, to kill enemy combatants in time of war. This extends to American citizens if they are engaged in war against the United States, including acts of terrorism. That's why both you and Rand Paul are so terribly wrong on that issue.

Don't American Citizens have the right to be tried, or at least have charges levied against them, before their government kills them? Yet for some reason you are ok with that. Not a lot of consistency from you.

Not necessarily in a time of war, when those citizens are considered enemy combatants. My answer is no.

Tim,

1) Are you saying that every American we've killed without due process has been declared an enemy combatant?

2) You're wrong. It's pathetic that you value the lives of people who aren't American, either by being a citizen or your more bizarre definition that anyone who shares our ideals is by default American, over the lives of actual Americans. And I don't care whether they're currently considered terrorists, or anything else. The WORST thing we can do as a country is kill our own without even indicting them for a crime. And if you think that's OK under any circumstances you're a bigger ******* than I already think you are.

1) No. But so long as the target of our strikes have been enemy combatants, killing innocents in wartime is morally justifiable. Please refer to my last post.

2. Was this a question? Obviously I think you're very very wrong. If the police could have prevented the Oklahoma City bombing by shooting and killing the two guys involved before they managed to get away with it, as they were setting up the bombs, I'm good with that. No trial? Too bad. Americans? Not anymore, not when they betray this country and want to blow us up. Not sure how that makes me an #######, but you're entitled.

 

[timschochet]

Also with regard to your comment about American citizen- this represents the same disconnect in your thinking, IMO, which you have about illegal immigrants. There is no magic thing about American citizens that separate is from everyone else. It is our ideals that make this nation better, not our citizenry. If we give up those ideals then we are no better than anyone else. Any rights we deserve as citizens are rights that everyone deserves, which is one reason why anyone who comes here should have the right to stay.

Culture, language, education, etc. You don't think that Americans (or those from any country from that matter) have fundamental differences? That seems really odd. Could you unpack that?

Of course there are differences. But my point is, they don't come with birth. A non-American, even a former terrorist, could come to this country, embrace the ideals that make this country great, and thereafter be a better American than many of the citizens who are born here. The ideals that make us great are universal: freedom of thought, freedom of action, a democratically elected republican government limited by a Constitution, and not least open to all who desire to come. If any nation on Earth were to accept these 4 ideals as fundamental, that nation would be more American than we are (since at the current time we unfortunately are not willing to abide by the 4th ideal I stated.)

I'm still confused. Are you saying we should invite terrorists into our society and try to make them Americans?You seem to be trying to tie NSA spying on citizens, CIA torturing terrorists, and illegal immigration together into one argument and it's not making a lick of sense (for obvious reasons).

It was not my intent to add illegal immigration into the argument. I did so because Strike keeps differentiating between American citizens and non-American citizens as if the latter were fair game for anything, and as if humane rights should only be accorded to the former. Obviously I disagree with that assumption.As to your question, I was simply making the point that to be an American is not a question of citizenship; it is a question of idealism. Anyone who shares our ideals is an American. Anyone who does not is not an American, even if they were born in Indiana.

I give up. You still aren't making any sense.

I don't mean to be confusing. If you have more specific questions I will try to answer them.

 

[tommyboy]

this entire report is payback from Feinstein because the CIA spied on her.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Well, we're obviously not going to allow our officials to be tried by the UN. Still, it's an embarrassing situation for us. We did sign those agreements.

I think we should agree to allow prosecution of our officials just as soon as every prior proposal since he U.N. charter, and then the Court are handled first, in chronological order. It ought to take about 3 centuries to get through the Soviet's cases, and longer probably to get through with China and then Cambodia. Throw in Castro's Cuba, Pinochet, Chavez, a half dozen or so African Despots and then various Muslim Regimes from the 50's through the 90's and they will get to us around the time we evolve into bodiless creatures of pure thought.Screw the world on their wanting to hold us accountable to standards they have shat on. There is no moral authority for the U.N. or anybody else to put us on trial. We are not without fault. we have done unconscionable things, though the matters in the recent report are not those things, but we occasionally strive for justice while the rest of the world strives only for advantage. Sure, they claim that they are moral from their point of view, but we are in fact unique in history in having invented restoring our enemies lands and rule absent additional war. We are unique in having actually, if unevenly held ourselves to principled moral standards. I am tired of the immoral petty despots of the world trying to hold our morals over our heads as a bludgeon when their hands are saturated with blood. Our hands are not clean, but they are not dripping with blood and offal.

i agree with most of this. However we are not unique in restoring the lands of our enemies. England and Israel have done the same.You're correct that the rest of the world has no right to hold us to a higher standard. But WE ourselves have that right, and the duty to do so.

So prosecute us, and not the thousands of dictatorships that have done evil things to their own people? Shouldn't we get waaaayyyy back in the back back back of the line?

What about Putin himself? As a KGB officer what kind of foul things do you think he has done, to his own citizens?

 

[RCon]

Not sure if this was discussed yet but what's worst - Our drone program or the enhanced interrogation tactics used? Drone program has killed hundreds of men, women and children without due process.

IMO, drones are a legitimate weapon in wartime. Torture is not.

I understand that a lot of people come to this same conclusion, but it does seem a bit off kilter. The idea that it's morally acceptable to drop bombs that are known to kill innocents (as collateral damage), but not morally acceptable to treat certain-people-who-are-most-certainly-not-innocent inhumanely, seems a bit... odd. Seems like somehow, society has gotten its priorities off the tracks.

I don't think it's off kilter at all. Again, we need to go back to the Nuremberg War Crimes trials, and the Japanese War Crimes trials. At those trials, we developed certain principles of moral behavior in wartime. We determined that torture was a war crime, and those who committed it were subject to punishment. We also determined that strategic bombing was NOT a war crime; otherwise, we would have had to prosecute ourselves for the bombings of Dresden, Tokyo, and of course Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Back in college, I attended several lectures on the subject of strategic bombing by Daniel Ellsberg, the 1970s version of Edward Snowden. I got to meet with him and argue with him. He was an absolutely brilliant guy. His premise was that all strategic bombing was immoral (indeed his reasoning for releasing the Pentagon Papers was because he believed that the Vietnam War was immoral BECAUSE of strategic bombing.) I disagreed with him then and still do, but his main reasoning was not that innocent people are killed in strategic bombing, but that far too many innocent people were killed- the ratio was the immoral part.

Now this was long before drones were invented- mid-80s. But the fact is that drones are far more precise than strategic bombing every was. Prior to drone strikes, any military bombing would take out hundreds or thousands of innocents, sometimes more. Drones do kill civilians, but far far less. Based on Ellsberg's reasoning back then, he should see drones as a far more humane weapon than what we had before (as indeed I do). But of course he doesn't. Ellsberg in recent years has given interviews condemning drones as worse than anything we've used before with the exception of the nukes dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I find that attitude to be inconsistent with his previous remarks.

That's great, but none of that has anything to do with what I posted...

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

this entire report is payback from Feinstein because the CIA spied on her.

Or it's a sop from/for Obama on his way out the door because the base was so dismayed he did not prosecute wrongdoing that he and other Democrats ran on in the first place?

I saw a clip from CNN where Blitzer asked Feinstein whether she would able to sleep at night if our military or intel personnel were killed because of this, also. She wouldn't answer.

 

[timschochet]

Let's put this in a way everybody can understand: Jack Thompson was born in Detroit. He converts to Islam, changes his name to Abdul Muhammad, flies to the Islamic State and joins ISIS. Over the next couple of years he is identified by photos and by informants as someone who has bombed several US Embassies, killing dozens of Americans. He is believed to be representing ISIS in their attempt to acquire nuclear weapons from Russia. He is identified as a key player in ISIS, and his death would severely hurt their organization. We have learned through informants that he will be in Beirut this Saturday, only for two hours. We have identified where his meeting would take place. There is no means to capture him alive.

I believe that it is the right decision to send a drone into that street and make sure this man is dead. We are at war; it's a justifiable killing, and whoever dies with him is unfortunate but justified as well. Strikes2k believes that because Mr. Muhammad is an American citizen, we have no right to kill him "under any circumstances." We have to indict him, and find a way to take him back home for a trial. But we cannot just take him out.

Which of us is right? You decide.

 

[timschochet]

Not sure if this was discussed yet but what's worst - Our drone program or the enhanced interrogation tactics used? Drone program has killed hundreds of men, women and children without due process.

IMO, drones are a legitimate weapon in wartime. Torture is not.

I understand that a lot of people come to this same conclusion, but it does seem a bit off kilter. The idea that it's morally acceptable to drop bombs that are known to kill innocents (as collateral damage), but not morally acceptable to treat certain-people-who-are-most-certainly-not-innocent inhumanely, seems a bit... odd. Seems like somehow, society has gotten its priorities off the tracks.

I don't think it's off kilter at all. Again, we need to go back to the Nuremberg War Crimes trials, and the Japanese War Crimes trials. At those trials, we developed certain principles of moral behavior in wartime. We determined that torture was a war crime, and those who committed it were subject to punishment. We also determined that strategic bombing was NOT a war crime; otherwise, we would have had to prosecute ourselves for the bombings of Dresden, Tokyo, and of course Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Back in college, I attended several lectures on the subject of strategic bombing by Daniel Ellsberg, the 1970s version of Edward Snowden. I got to meet with him and argue with him. He was an absolutely brilliant guy. His premise was that all strategic bombing was immoral (indeed his reasoning for releasing the Pentagon Papers was because he believed that the Vietnam War was immoral BECAUSE of strategic bombing.) I disagreed with him then and still do, but his main reasoning was not that innocent people are killed in strategic bombing, but that far too many innocent people were killed- the ratio was the immoral part.

Now this was long before drones were invented- mid-80s. But the fact is that drones are far more precise than strategic bombing every was. Prior to drone strikes, any military bombing would take out hundreds or thousands of innocents, sometimes more. Drones do kill civilians, but far far less. Based on Ellsberg's reasoning back then, he should see drones as a far more humane weapon than what we had before (as indeed I do). But of course he doesn't. Ellsberg in recent years has given interviews condemning drones as worse than anything we've used before with the exception of the nukes dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I find that attitude to be inconsistent with his previous remarks.

That's great, but none of that has anything to do with what I posted...

I don't think my morals are off kilter because they are based on rules we established 70 years ago.

 

[timschochet]

Well, we're obviously not going to allow our officials to be tried by the UN. Still, it's an embarrassing situation for us. We did sign those agreements.

I think we should agree to allow prosecution of our officials just as soon as every prior proposal since he U.N. charter, and then the Court are handled first, in chronological order. It ought to take about 3 centuries to get through the Soviet's cases, and longer probably to get through with China and then Cambodia. Throw in Castro's Cuba, Pinochet, Chavez, a half dozen or so African Despots and then various Muslim Regimes from the 50's through the 90's and they will get to us around the time we evolve into bodiless creatures of pure thought.Screw the world on their wanting to hold us accountable to standards they have shat on. There is no moral authority for the U.N. or anybody else to put us on trial. We are not without fault. we have done unconscionable things, though the matters in the recent report are not those things, but we occasionally strive for justice while the rest of the world strives only for advantage. Sure, they claim that they are moral from their point of view, but we are in fact unique in history in having invented restoring our enemies lands and rule absent additional war. We are unique in having actually, if unevenly held ourselves to principled moral standards. I am tired of the immoral petty despots of the world trying to hold our morals over our heads as a bludgeon when their hands are saturated with blood. Our hands are not clean, but they are not dripping with blood and offal.

i agree with most of this. However we are not unique in restoring the lands of our enemies. England and Israel have done the same.You're correct that the rest of the world has no right to hold us to a higher standard. But WE ourselves have that right, and the duty to do so.

So prosecute us, and not the thousands of dictatorships that have done evil things to their own people? Shouldn't we get waaaayyyy back in the back back back of the line?

What about Putin himself? As a KGB officer what kind of foul things do you think he has done, to his own citizens?

We should prosecute every leader of every dictatorship that we get our hands on. We should NOT prosecute ourselves for this particular act. But we should hold ourselves to a higher standard than the dictators. We are better than they are.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Let's put this in a way everybody can understand: Jack Thompson was born in Detroit. He converts to Islam, changes his name to Abdul Muhammad, flies to the Islamic State and joins ISIS. Over the next couple of years he is identified by photos and by informants as someone who has bombed several US Embassies, killing dozens of Americans. He is believed to be representing ISIS in their attempt to acquire nuclear weapons from Russia. He is identified as a key player in ISIS, and his death would severely hurt their organization. We have learned through informants that he will be in Beirut this Saturday, only for two hours. We have identified where his meeting would take place. There is no means to capture him alive.

I believe that it is the right decision to send a drone into that street and make sure this man is dead. We are at war; it's a justifiable killing, and whoever dies with him is unfortunate but justified as well. Strikes2k believes that because Mr. Muhammad is an American citizen, we have no right to kill him "under any circumstances." We have to indict him, and find a way to take him back home for a trial. But we cannot just take him out.

Which of us is right? You decide.

We know when and where he is meeting but there is no chance to capture him alive. Only in Timmy's world.

 

[timschochet]

this entire report is payback from Feinstein because the CIA spied on her.

Whatever the reason, I think it's a good thing that the report was released.

Also, I'm a big fan of Feinstein, and I think you demean her here.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Let's put this in a way everybody can understand: Jack Thompson was born in Detroit. He converts to Islam, changes his name to Abdul Muhammad, flies to the Islamic State and joins ISIS. Over the next couple of years he is identified by photos and by informants as someone who has bombed several US Embassies, killing dozens of Americans. He is believed to be representing ISIS in their attempt to acquire nuclear weapons from Russia. He is identified as a key player in ISIS, and his death would severely hurt their organization. We have learned through informants that he will be in Beirut this Saturday, only for two hours. We have identified where his meeting would take place. There is no means to capture him alive.

I believe that it is the right decision to send a drone into that street and make sure this man is dead. We are at war; it's a justifiable killing, and whoever dies with him is unfortunate but justified as well. Strikes2k believes that because Mr. Muhammad is an American citizen, we have no right to kill him "under any circumstances." We have to indict him, and find a way to take him back home for a trial. But we cannot just take him out.

Which of us is right? You decide.

You're right, the Throwin' Samoan would be declared guilty of treason and hung anyway. We have to serve him with papers, capture him, drag him back to America and then hang him?

No.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Well, we're obviously not going to allow our officials to be tried by the UN. Still, it's an embarrassing situation for us. We did sign those agreements.

I think we should agree to allow prosecution of our officials just as soon as every prior proposal since he U.N. charter, and then the Court are handled first, in chronological order. It ought to take about 3 centuries to get through the Soviet's cases, and longer probably to get through with China and then Cambodia. Throw in Castro's Cuba, Pinochet, Chavez, a half dozen or so African Despots and then various Muslim Regimes from the 50's through the 90's and they will get to us around the time we evolve into bodiless creatures of pure thought.Screw the world on their wanting to hold us accountable to standards they have shat on. There is no moral authority for the U.N. or anybody else to put us on trial. We are not without fault. we have done unconscionable things, though the matters in the recent report are not those things, but we occasionally strive for justice while the rest of the world strives only for advantage. Sure, they claim that they are moral from their point of view, but we are in fact unique in history in having invented restoring our enemies lands and rule absent additional war. We are unique in having actually, if unevenly held ourselves to principled moral standards. I am tired of the immoral petty despots of the world trying to hold our morals over our heads as a bludgeon when their hands are saturated with blood. Our hands are not clean, but they are not dripping with blood and offal.

i agree with most of this. However we are not unique in restoring the lands of our enemies. England and Israel have done the same.You're correct that the rest of the world has no right to hold us to a higher standard. But WE ourselves have that right, and the duty to do so.

So prosecute us, and not the thousands of dictatorships that have done evil things to their own people? Shouldn't we get waaaayyyy back in the back back back of the line?

What about Putin himself? As a KGB officer what kind of foul things do you think he has done, to his own citizens?

We should prosecute every leader of every dictatorship that we get our hands on. We should NOT prosecute ourselves for this particular act. But we should hold ourselves to a higher standard than the dictators. We are better than they are.

I'm not sure that makes sense. The guilt and greatest offenders get off scott free while the "good" (who are fighting the true aforementioned criminals) are required to turns themselves in quietly?

 

[tommyboy]

this entire report is payback from Feinstein because the CIA spied on her.

Whatever the reason, I think it's a good thing that the report was released.

Also, I'm a big fan of Feinstein, and I think you demean her here.

you should ask her why she didn't interview anyone from the CIA before releasing this report

 

[timschochet]

Let's put this in a way everybody can understand: Jack Thompson was born in Detroit. He converts to Islam, changes his name to Abdul Muhammad, flies to the Islamic State and joins ISIS. Over the next couple of years he is identified by photos and by informants as someone who has bombed several US Embassies, killing dozens of Americans. He is believed to be representing ISIS in their attempt to acquire nuclear weapons from Russia. He is identified as a key player in ISIS, and his death would severely hurt their organization. We have learned through informants that he will be in Beirut this Saturday, only for two hours. We have identified where his meeting would take place. There is no means to capture him alive.

I believe that it is the right decision to send a drone into that street and make sure this man is dead. We are at war; it's a justifiable killing, and whoever dies with him is unfortunate but justified as well. Strikes2k believes that because Mr. Muhammad is an American citizen, we have no right to kill him "under any circumstances." We have to indict him, and find a way to take him back home for a trial. But we cannot just take him out.

Which of us is right? You decide.

We know when and where he is meeting but there is no chance to capture him alive. Only in Timmy's world.

That actually happens a lot. However, I'm willing for the sake of argument to assume that we could capture him, at the cost of the lives of many of our military. It would lead to a big show trial in the United States, the security for which would cost millions of dollars, and the net result a propaganda victory for ISIS and the creation of a heroic figure around the world. In such a circumstance, I would still be for taking him out. This is a war.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Let's put this in a way everybody can understand: Jack Thompson was born in Detroit. He converts to Islam, changes his name to Abdul Muhammad, flies to the Islamic State and joins ISIS. Over the next couple of years he is identified by photos and by informants as someone who has bombed several US Embassies, killing dozens of Americans. He is believed to be representing ISIS in their attempt to acquire nuclear weapons from Russia. He is identified as a key player in ISIS, and his death would severely hurt their organization. We have learned through informants that he will be in Beirut this Saturday, only for two hours. We have identified where his meeting would take place. There is no means to capture him alive.

I believe that it is the right decision to send a drone into that street and make sure this man is dead. We are at war; it's a justifiable killing, and whoever dies with him is unfortunate but justified as well. Strikes2k believes that because Mr. Muhammad is an American citizen, we have no right to kill him "under any circumstances." We have to indict him, and find a way to take him back home for a trial. But we cannot just take him out.

Which of us is right? You decide.

We know when and where he is meeting but there is no chance to capture him alive. Only in Timmy's world.

That actually happens a lot. However, I'm willing for the sake of argument to assume that we could capture him, at the cost of the lives of many of our military. It would lead to a big show trial in the United States, the security for which would cost millions of dollars, and the net result a propaganda victory for ISIS and the creation of a heroic figure around the world. In such a circumstance, I would still be for taking him out. This is a war.

Yeah, we don't even have time to indict him!!!!

 

[timschochet]

Well, we're obviously not going to allow our officials to be tried by the UN. Still, it's an embarrassing situation for us. We did sign those agreements.

I think we should agree to allow prosecution of our officials just as soon as every prior proposal since he U.N. charter, and then the Court are handled first, in chronological order. It ought to take about 3 centuries to get through the Soviet's cases, and longer probably to get through with China and then Cambodia. Throw in Castro's Cuba, Pinochet, Chavez, a half dozen or so African Despots and then various Muslim Regimes from the 50's through the 90's and they will get to us around the time we evolve into bodiless creatures of pure thought.Screw the world on their wanting to hold us accountable to standards they have shat on. There is no moral authority for the U.N. or anybody else to put us on trial. We are not without fault. we have done unconscionable things, though the matters in the recent report are not those things, but we occasionally strive for justice while the rest of the world strives only for advantage. Sure, they claim that they are moral from their point of view, but we are in fact unique in history in having invented restoring our enemies lands and rule absent additional war. We are unique in having actually, if unevenly held ourselves to principled moral standards. I am tired of the immoral petty despots of the world trying to hold our morals over our heads as a bludgeon when their hands are saturated with blood. Our hands are not clean, but they are not dripping with blood and offal.

i agree with most of this. However we are not unique in restoring the lands of our enemies. England and Israel have done the same.You're correct that the rest of the world has no right to hold us to a higher standard. But WE ourselves have that right, and the duty to do so.

So prosecute us, and not the thousands of dictatorships that have done evil things to their own people? Shouldn't we get waaaayyyy back in the back back back of the line?

What about Putin himself? As a KGB officer what kind of foul things do you think he has done, to his own citizens?

We should prosecute every leader of every dictatorship that we get our hands on. We should NOT prosecute ourselves for this particular act. But we should hold ourselves to a higher standard than the dictators. We are better than they are.

I'm not sure that makes sense. The guilt and greatest offenders get off scott free while the "good" (who are fighting the true aforementioned criminals) are required to turns themselves in quietly?

It's the same with Israel, Saints. It's the same with any police force in this country. We have to follow the rules. The bad guys don't. We don't get to scrap the rules because they do. The rules are good.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Well, we're obviously not going to allow our officials to be tried by the UN. Still, it's an embarrassing situation for us. We did sign those agreements.

I think we should agree to allow prosecution of our officials just as soon as every prior proposal since he U.N. charter, and then the Court are handled first, in chronological order. It ought to take about 3 centuries to get through the Soviet's cases, and longer probably to get through with China and then Cambodia. Throw in Castro's Cuba, Pinochet, Chavez, a half dozen or so African Despots and then various Muslim Regimes from the 50's through the 90's and they will get to us around the time we evolve into bodiless creatures of pure thought.Screw the world on their wanting to hold us accountable to standards they have shat on. There is no moral authority for the U.N. or anybody else to put us on trial. We are not without fault. we have done unconscionable things, though the matters in the recent report are not those things, but we occasionally strive for justice while the rest of the world strives only for advantage. Sure, they claim that they are moral from their point of view, but we are in fact unique in history in having invented restoring our enemies lands and rule absent additional war. We are unique in having actually, if unevenly held ourselves to principled moral standards. I am tired of the immoral petty despots of the world trying to hold our morals over our heads as a bludgeon when their hands are saturated with blood. Our hands are not clean, but they are not dripping with blood and offal.

i agree with most of this. However we are not unique in restoring the lands of our enemies. England and Israel have done the same.You're correct that the rest of the world has no right to hold us to a higher standard. But WE ourselves have that right, and the duty to do so.

So prosecute us, and not the thousands of dictatorships that have done evil things to their own people? Shouldn't we get waaaayyyy back in the back back back of the line?

What about Putin himself? As a KGB officer what kind of foul things do you think he has done, to his own citizens?

We should prosecute every leader of every dictatorship that we get our hands on. We should NOT prosecute ourselves for this particular act. But we should hold ourselves to a higher standard than the dictators. We are better than they are.

I'm not sure that makes sense. The guilt and greatest offenders get off scott free while the "good" (who are fighting the true aforementioned criminals) are required to turns themselves in quietly?

It's the same with Israel, Saints. It's the same with any police force in this country. We have to follow the rules. The bad guys don't. We don't get to scrap the rules because they do. The rules are good.

Yeah let's have a long think on that one:

* (A) Iranian security agent tortures citizen for watching western TV shows or for reading outlawed books.

* (B) US CIA agent tortures suspected AQ member because he might have information on a plot to blow up airliners.

(A) is the same as (B)?

 

[RCon]

Not sure if this was discussed yet but what's worst - Our drone program or the enhanced interrogation tactics used? Drone program has killed hundreds of men, women and children without due process.

IMO, drones are a legitimate weapon in wartime. Torture is not.

I understand that a lot of people come to this same conclusion, but it does seem a bit off kilter. The idea that it's morally acceptable to drop bombs that are known to kill innocents (as collateral damage), but not morally acceptable to treat certain-people-who-are-most-certainly-not-innocent inhumanely, seems a bit... odd. Seems like somehow, society has gotten its priorities off the tracks.

I don't think it's off kilter at all. Again, we need to go back to the Nuremberg War Crimes trials, and the Japanese War Crimes trials. At those trials, we developed certain principles of moral behavior in wartime. We determined that torture was a war crime, and those who committed it were subject to punishment. We also determined that strategic bombing was NOT a war crime; otherwise, we would have had to prosecute ourselves for the bombings of Dresden, Tokyo, and of course Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Back in college, I attended several lectures on the subject of strategic bombing by Daniel Ellsberg, the 1970s version of Edward Snowden. I got to meet with him and argue with him. He was an absolutely brilliant guy. His premise was that all strategic bombing was immoral (indeed his reasoning for releasing the Pentagon Papers was because he believed that the Vietnam War was immoral BECAUSE of strategic bombing.) I disagreed with him then and still do, but his main reasoning was not that innocent people are killed in strategic bombing, but that far too many innocent people were killed- the ratio was the immoral part.

Now this was long before drones were invented- mid-80s. But the fact is that drones are far more precise than strategic bombing every was. Prior to drone strikes, any military bombing would take out hundreds or thousands of innocents, sometimes more. Drones do kill civilians, but far far less. Based on Ellsberg's reasoning back then, he should see drones as a far more humane weapon than what we had before (as indeed I do). But of course he doesn't. Ellsberg in recent years has given interviews condemning drones as worse than anything we've used before with the exception of the nukes dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I find that attitude to be inconsistent with his previous remarks.

That's great, but none of that has anything to do with what I posted...

I don't think my morals are off kilter because they are based on rules we established 70 years ago.

"That's the way we've always done it" isn't a good reason for anything.

 

[timschochet]

Not sure if this was discussed yet but what's worst - Our drone program or the enhanced interrogation tactics used? Drone program has killed hundreds of men, women and children without due process.

IMO, drones are a legitimate weapon in wartime. Torture is not.

I understand that a lot of people come to this same conclusion, but it does seem a bit off kilter. The idea that it's morally acceptable to drop bombs that are known to kill innocents (as collateral damage), but not morally acceptable to treat certain-people-who-are-most-certainly-not-innocent inhumanely, seems a bit... odd. Seems like somehow, society has gotten its priorities off the tracks.

I don't think it's off kilter at all. Again, we need to go back to the Nuremberg War Crimes trials, and the Japanese War Crimes trials. At those trials, we developed certain principles of moral behavior in wartime. We determined that torture was a war crime, and those who committed it were subject to punishment. We also determined that strategic bombing was NOT a war crime; otherwise, we would have had to prosecute ourselves for the bombings of Dresden, Tokyo, and of course Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Back in college, I attended several lectures on the subject of strategic bombing by Daniel Ellsberg, the 1970s version of Edward Snowden. I got to meet with him and argue with him. He was an absolutely brilliant guy. His premise was that all strategic bombing was immoral (indeed his reasoning for releasing the Pentagon Papers was because he believed that the Vietnam War was immoral BECAUSE of strategic bombing.) I disagreed with him then and still do, but his main reasoning was not that innocent people are killed in strategic bombing, but that far too many innocent people were killed- the ratio was the immoral part.

Now this was long before drones were invented- mid-80s. But the fact is that drones are far more precise than strategic bombing every was. Prior to drone strikes, any military bombing would take out hundreds or thousands of innocents, sometimes more. Drones do kill civilians, but far far less. Based on Ellsberg's reasoning back then, he should see drones as a far more humane weapon than what we had before (as indeed I do). But of course he doesn't. Ellsberg in recent years has given interviews condemning drones as worse than anything we've used before with the exception of the nukes dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I find that attitude to be inconsistent with his previous remarks.

That's great, but none of that has anything to do with what I posted...

I don't think my morals are off kilter because they are based on rules we established 70 years ago.

"That's the way we've always done it" isn't really a good defense.

That's true, but my rather lengthy explanation above attempted to explain why it made sense then and makes even more sense now.

 

[timschochet]

Well, we're obviously not going to allow our officials to be tried by the UN. Still, it's an embarrassing situation for us. We did sign those agreements.

I think we should agree to allow prosecution of our officials just as soon as every prior proposal since he U.N. charter, and then the Court are handled first, in chronological order. It ought to take about 3 centuries to get through the Soviet's cases, and longer probably to get through with China and then Cambodia. Throw in Castro's Cuba, Pinochet, Chavez, a half dozen or so African Despots and then various Muslim Regimes from the 50's through the 90's and they will get to us around the time we evolve into bodiless creatures of pure thought.Screw the world on their wanting to hold us accountable to standards they have shat on. There is no moral authority for the U.N. or anybody else to put us on trial. We are not without fault. we have done unconscionable things, though the matters in the recent report are not those things, but we occasionally strive for justice while the rest of the world strives only for advantage. Sure, they claim that they are moral from their point of view, but we are in fact unique in history in having invented restoring our enemies lands and rule absent additional war. We are unique in having actually, if unevenly held ourselves to principled moral standards. I am tired of the immoral petty despots of the world trying to hold our morals over our heads as a bludgeon when their hands are saturated with blood. Our hands are not clean, but they are not dripping with blood and offal.

i agree with most of this. However we are not unique in restoring the lands of our enemies. England and Israel have done the same.You're correct that the rest of the world has no right to hold us to a higher standard. But WE ourselves have that right, and the duty to do so.

So prosecute us, and not the thousands of dictatorships that have done evil things to their own people? Shouldn't we get waaaayyyy back in the back back back of the line?

What about Putin himself? As a KGB officer what kind of foul things do you think he has done, to his own citizens?

We should prosecute every leader of every dictatorship that we get our hands on. We should NOT prosecute ourselves for this particular act. But we should hold ourselves to a higher standard than the dictators. We are better than they are.

I'm not sure that makes sense. The guilt and greatest offenders get off scott free while the "good" (who are fighting the true aforementioned criminals) are required to turns themselves in quietly?

It's the same with Israel, Saints. It's the same with any police force in this country. We have to follow the rules. The bad guys don't. We don't get to scrap the rules because they do. The rules are good.

Yeah let's have a long think on that one:

* (A) Iranian security agent tortures citizen for watching western TV shows or for reading outlawed books.

* (B) US CIA agent tortures suspected AQ member because he might have information on a plot to blow up airliners.

(A) is the same as (B)?

No. But (B) is bad. (B) needs to be condemned. Just because (B) isn't as bad as (A) doesn't mean (B) should be tolerated.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Well, we're obviously not going to allow our officials to be tried by the UN. Still, it's an embarrassing situation for us. We did sign those agreements.

I think we should agree to allow prosecution of our officials just as soon as every prior proposal since he U.N. charter, and then the Court are handled first, in chronological order. It ought to take about 3 centuries to get through the Soviet's cases, and longer probably to get through with China and then Cambodia. Throw in Castro's Cuba, Pinochet, Chavez, a half dozen or so African Despots and then various Muslim Regimes from the 50's through the 90's and they will get to us around the time we evolve into bodiless creatures of pure thought.Screw the world on their wanting to hold us accountable to standards they have shat on. There is no moral authority for the U.N. or anybody else to put us on trial. We are not without fault. we have done unconscionable things, though the matters in the recent report are not those things, but we occasionally strive for justice while the rest of the world strives only for advantage. Sure, they claim that they are moral from their point of view, but we are in fact unique in history in having invented restoring our enemies lands and rule absent additional war. We are unique in having actually, if unevenly held ourselves to principled moral standards. I am tired of the immoral petty despots of the world trying to hold our morals over our heads as a bludgeon when their hands are saturated with blood. Our hands are not clean, but they are not dripping with blood and offal.

i agree with most of this. However we are not unique in restoring the lands of our enemies. England and Israel have done the same.You're correct that the rest of the world has no right to hold us to a higher standard. But WE ourselves have that right, and the duty to do so.

So prosecute us, and not the thousands of dictatorships that have done evil things to their own people? Shouldn't we get waaaayyyy back in the back back back of the line?

What about Putin himself? As a KGB officer what kind of foul things do you think he has done, to his own citizens?

We should prosecute every leader of every dictatorship that we get our hands on. We should NOT prosecute ourselves for this particular act. But we should hold ourselves to a higher standard than the dictators. We are better than they are.

I'm not sure that makes sense. The guilt and greatest offenders get off scott free while the "good" (who are fighting the true aforementioned criminals) are required to turns themselves in quietly?

It's the same with Israel, Saints. It's the same with any police force in this country. We have to follow the rules. The bad guys don't. We don't get to scrap the rules because they do. The rules are good.

Yeah let's have a long think on that one:

* (A) Iranian security agent tortures citizen for watching western TV shows or for reading outlawed books.

* (B) US CIA agent tortures suspected AQ member because he might have information on a plot to blow up airliners.

(A) is the same as (B)?

No. But (B) is bad. (B) needs to be condemned. Just because (B) isn't as bad as (A) doesn't mean (B) should be tolerated.

And yet Pres. Obama has already said that (B) will not be prosecuted.

We are going to let someone else prosecute our guy for something that we ourselves will not prosecute him for?

 

[jonessed]

Let's put this in a way everybody can understand: Jack Thompson was born in Detroit. He converts to Islam, changes his name to Abdul Muhammad, flies to the Islamic State and joins ISIS. Over the next couple of years he is identified by photos and by informants as someone who has bombed several US Embassies, killing dozens of Americans. He is believed to be representing ISIS in their attempt to acquire nuclear weapons from Russia. He is identified as a key player in ISIS, and his death would severely hurt their organization. We have learned through informants that he will be in Beirut this Saturday, only for two hours. We have identified where his meeting would take place. There is no means to capture him alive.

I believe that it is the right decision to send a drone into that street and make sure this man is dead. We are at war; it's a justifiable killing, and whoever dies with him is unfortunate but justified as well. Strikes2k believes that because Mr. Muhammad is an American citizen, we have no right to kill him "under any circumstances." We have to indict him, and find a way to take him back home for a trial. But we cannot just take him out.

Which of us is right? You decide.

Strikes is.

 

[timschochet]

No. It shouldn't be prosecuted. And we shouldn't let anyone else do it. Obama is correct.

Ditkaless Wonders post about the United Nations is dead on. For years they have taken every opportunity to condemn the United States and Israel while maintaining silence on far worse crimes around the world, including genocide. South Africa under Apertheid for years was also a main target of the UN, despite the fact that much more horrible acts were committed in much of the rest of Africa at the same time. Basically the UN has been, for most of it's existence, an attack against Imperialist Whitey.

Now, unlike some conservatives, I wouldn't have us pull out of the United Nations. The UN does plenty of good, and it's still better to have the nations of the world in a grouping to discuss events rather than to return to the situation before World War II. But we should also be aware of what the prerogative is of most of the member states, and take their moral judgment with a grain of salt.

 

[timschochet]

Let's put this in a way everybody can understand: Jack Thompson was born in Detroit. He converts to Islam, changes his name to Abdul Muhammad, flies to the Islamic State and joins ISIS. Over the next couple of years he is identified by photos and by informants as someone who has bombed several US Embassies, killing dozens of Americans. He is believed to be representing ISIS in their attempt to acquire nuclear weapons from Russia. He is identified as a key player in ISIS, and his death would severely hurt their organization. We have learned through informants that he will be in Beirut this Saturday, only for two hours. We have identified where his meeting would take place. There is no means to capture him alive.

I believe that it is the right decision to send a drone into that street and make sure this man is dead. We are at war; it's a justifiable killing, and whoever dies with him is unfortunate but justified as well. Strikes2k believes that because Mr. Muhammad is an American citizen, we have no right to kill him "under any circumstances." We have to indict him, and find a way to take him back home for a trial. But we cannot just take him out.

Which of us is right? You decide.

Strikes is.

OK. I hope, for the sake of our security, those in charge will continue to disagree with you.

 

[stlrams]

this entire report is payback from Feinstein because the CIA spied on her.

Whatever the reason, I think it's a good thing that the report was released.

Also, I'm a big fan of Feinstein, and I think you demean her here.

So you like liars??. She was brief over 40 times about the enhanced interrogation tactics. Per numerous people from the CIA, she knew what was going on and reportly pressed the CIA to step up their game. Now that the report comes out, she claims to have no idea what was happening....

 

[jonessed]

Let's put this in a way everybody can understand: Jack Thompson was born in Detroit. He converts to Islam, changes his name to Abdul Muhammad, flies to the Islamic State and joins ISIS. Over the next couple of years he is identified by photos and by informants as someone who has bombed several US Embassies, killing dozens of Americans. He is believed to be representing ISIS in their attempt to acquire nuclear weapons from Russia. He is identified as a key player in ISIS, and his death would severely hurt their organization. We have learned through informants that he will be in Beirut this Saturday, only for two hours. We have identified where his meeting would take place. There is no means to capture him alive.

I believe that it is the right decision to send a drone into that street and make sure this man is dead. We are at war; it's a justifiable killing, and whoever dies with him is unfortunate but justified as well. Strikes2k believes that because Mr. Muhammad is an American citizen, we have no right to kill him "under any circumstances." We have to indict him, and find a way to take him back home for a trial. But we cannot just take him out.

Which of us is right? You decide.

Strikes is.

OK. I hope, for the sake of our security, those in charge will continue to disagree with you.

I'm well aware of your positions on security and liberty.

 

[timschochet]

Let's put this in a way everybody can understand: Jack Thompson was born in Detroit. He converts to Islam, changes his name to Abdul Muhammad, flies to the Islamic State and joins ISIS. Over the next couple of years he is identified by photos and by informants as someone who has bombed several US Embassies, killing dozens of Americans. He is believed to be representing ISIS in their attempt to acquire nuclear weapons from Russia. He is identified as a key player in ISIS, and his death would severely hurt their organization. We have learned through informants that he will be in Beirut this Saturday, only for two hours. We have identified where his meeting would take place. There is no means to capture him alive.

I believe that it is the right decision to send a drone into that street and make sure this man is dead. We are at war; it's a justifiable killing, and whoever dies with him is unfortunate but justified as well. Strikes2k believes that because Mr. Muhammad is an American citizen, we have no right to kill him "under any circumstances." We have to indict him, and find a way to take him back home for a trial. But we cannot just take him out.

Which of us is right? You decide.

Strikes is.

OK. I hope, for the sake of our security, those in charge will continue to disagree with you.

I'm well aware of your positions on security and liberty.

I'm not on yours though. Where do you stand on this main topic of this thread (torture)?

 

[The_Man]

I don't understand how anyone with libertarian beliefs can be at all ok with this. The federal government secretly torturing people, with no oversight, in violation of laws created with the intention of protecting the rights of individuals, and with no recourse or punishment for the torturers is pretty much the libertarian worst case nightmare scenario, right?

 

[jonessed]

Let's put this in a way everybody can understand: Jack Thompson was born in Detroit. He converts to Islam, changes his name to Abdul Muhammad, flies to the Islamic State and joins ISIS. Over the next couple of years he is identified by photos and by informants as someone who has bombed several US Embassies, killing dozens of Americans. He is believed to be representing ISIS in their attempt to acquire nuclear weapons from Russia. He is identified as a key player in ISIS, and his death would severely hurt their organization. We have learned through informants that he will be in Beirut this Saturday, only for two hours. We have identified where his meeting would take place. There is no means to capture him alive.

I believe that it is the right decision to send a drone into that street and make sure this man is dead. We are at war; it's a justifiable killing, and whoever dies with him is unfortunate but justified as well. Strikes2k believes that because Mr. Muhammad is an American citizen, we have no right to kill him "under any circumstances." We have to indict him, and find a way to take him back home for a trial. But we cannot just take him out.

Which of us is right? You decide.

Strikes is.

OK. I hope, for the sake of our security, those in charge will continue to disagree with you.

I'm well aware of your positions on security and liberty.

I'm not on yours though. Where do you stand on this main topic of this thread (torture)?

I understand why it was done, but it clearly went too far. it was already known to be rectified though so releasing the report only serves a political purpose. If I had to guess Feinstein is trying to make up for allowing it to happen and her support of the NSA privacy transgressions.

If you didn't have a pretty good idea of what went on you weren't paying attention. Most of this has been leaked or alluded to previously.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Not sure if this was discussed yet but what's worst - Our drone program or the enhanced interrogation tactics used? Drone program has killed hundreds of men, women and children without due process.

IMO, drones are a legitimate weapon in wartime. Torture is not.

So for the record...You are ok with killing people., but not smacking them around or humiliating them?

im OK with killing enemy combatants in times of war. I am saddened and upset that innocent people are often killed as well, but again in war it's morally justified IMO.Torture is not OK. Humiliating people, removing their dignity, is never OK.

And yet folks in Detroit encourage their young to become Lions fans.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Well, we're obviously not going to allow our officials to be tried by the UN. Still, it's an embarrassing situation for us. We did sign those agreements.

I think we should agree to allow prosecution of our officials just as soon as every prior proposal since he U.N. charter, and then the Court are handled first, in chronological order. It ought to take about 3 centuries to get through the Soviet's cases, and longer probably to get through with China and then Cambodia. Throw in Castro's Cuba, Pinochet, Chavez, a half dozen or so African Despots and then various Muslim Regimes from the 50's through the 90's and they will get to us around the time we evolve into bodiless creatures of pure thought.

Screw the world on their wanting to hold us accountable to standards they have shat on. There is no moral authority for the U.N. or anybody else to put us on trial. We are not without fault. we have done unconscionable things, though the matters in the recent report are not those things, but we occasionally strive for justice while the rest of the world strives only for advantage. Sure, they claim that they are moral from their point of view, but we are in fact unique in history in having invented restoring our enemies lands and rule absent additional war. We are unique in having actually, if unevenly held ourselves to principled moral standards. I am tired of the immoral petty despots of the world trying to hold our morals over our heads as a bludgeon when their hands are saturated with blood. Our hands are not clean, but they are not dripping with blood and offal.

Grammarians, should this have been "shat upon"? These things are difficult when English is not your first language.

 

[Todd Andrews]

I don't understand how anyone with libertarian beliefs can be at all ok with this. The federal government secretly torturing people, with no oversight, in violation of laws created with the intention of protecting the rights of individuals, and with no recourse or punishment for the torturers is pretty much the libertarian worst case nightmare scenario, right?

No one with libertarian beliefs is ok with torture.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't understand how anyone with libertarian beliefs can be at all ok with this. The federal government secretly torturing people, with no oversight, in violation of laws created with the intention of protecting the rights of individuals, and with no recourse or punishment for the torturers is pretty much the libertarian worst case nightmare scenario, right?

I'm trying to think about who is ok with torture as defined by ideology. We don't even know the ideologies of the torturers themselves. I think this is a moral call, not a political one.

And I know it's subtle, and maybe wrong, but let's try to keep track of motives here. Gestapo or Stassi or KGB or Iranians agents torturing civilians for crimes against the state? Or US intelligence personnel trying to stop terrorists from blowing up planes and buildings, or even worse? I think there's got to be a sliding scale there of some kind.

I mean I know you (we) think we believe in certain things, but put yourself in the shoes of a President Obama or Bush or Clinton and you are told a city like New York is at risk. You're going to say, "well do everything you can.... but don't do that." Go ahead, you make the call.

 

[GrandpaRox]

I don't understand how anyone with libertarian beliefs can be at all ok with this. The federal government secretly torturing people, with no oversight, in violation of laws created with the intention of protecting the rights of individuals, and with no recourse or punishment for the torturers is pretty much the libertarian worst case nightmare scenario, right?

No one with libertarian beliefs is ok with torture.

How about golden showers?

 

[Al O'Pecia]

I'm trying to think about who is ok with torture as defined by ideology.

Sadists, Masochists

 

[johnnycakes]

I don't understand how anyone with libertarian beliefs can be at all ok with this. The federal government secretly torturing people, with no oversight, in violation of laws created with the intention of protecting the rights of individuals, and with no recourse or punishment for the torturers is pretty much the libertarian worst case nightmare scenario, right?

I'm trying to think about who is ok with torture as defined by ideology.

If you watch the video, painful as it is to watch, it certainly looks to me like this is all being wrapped in ISIS' interpretation of Islam.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

"I want to be absolutely clear with our people and the world: The United States does not torture. It’s against our laws, and it’s against our values. I have not authorized it, and I will not authorize it."

George W Bush - 2006

 

[Jack White]

It's amazing to me how many of you seem to believe that anything can be accomplished by endorsing torture, murder and genocide by the state.

Kill women and children with drone strikes? Sure, why not!

Firebomb Dresden? Absolutely!

Nuke Nagasaki? No problem!

 

[fatness]

If only this could have been kept from the public, things would have been OK.

 

[GrandpaRox]

this entire report is payback from Feinstein because the CIA spied on her.

Whatever the reason, I think it's a good thing that the report was released.

Also, I'm a big fan of Feinstein, and I think you demean her here.

Best thing about Feinstein is that she is 81 years old.

 

[roadkill1292]

If only this could have been kept from the public, things would have been OK.

**** Cheney agrees.

 

[roadkill1292]

"I want to be absolutely clear with our people and the world: The United States does not torture. It’s against our laws, and it’s against our values. I have not authorized it, and I will not authorize it."

George W Bush - 2006

Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama and every president since the Civil War are full of it.

Torture is who we are.