Edgeplay_cgo

I assume that's correct.

But the argument that ,"If we do <insert particularly heinous practive here> we'll be just like them, is usually nothing more than a debate stopping trick. It plays on emotionalism - an emotionalism that has plagued this thread.

This isn't about emotionalism. It's about preserving the very fabric of civilization. We need to do some pretty rotten things to do that. Like killing thousands of people. That may be ironic, but it has been the case since Pharaoh was a second lieutanant.

For the most part, torture is not very effective. It takes a toll on the soul of the torturer. If it is allowed at a unit level, it tends to be corrosive of unit discipline. For those reasons, the practice is generally the incorrect one to use.

But it has its uses, particularly against particularly hardcases, and in cases of urgency. It should be done secretly, and not discussed. It should be done rareely. It should be done by a limited number of individuals.

I believe its use should be regulated by command guidance at about the Theatre level.

Evert nation uses this practice, or would if necessary. Every nation. I do not believe any statements to the contrary, whatever their authority or my acquaintance and respect for the individual making the statement.

Anyway, we're at the point of committing the sins of sadism, necrophilia, and bestiality - beating a dead horse. I'm content to argue something else before I make any permanent enemies.

__________________
- Dennis
--
Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.
-Sir Winston Churchill

Edgeplay_cgo

I've heard as many statements that the locals considered it not to be a big deal. Any way, Abu Ghraib is not the issue here.

Low-tech

edgeplay, you are talking about something that would go beyond laws that have been put in place to try to define the boundries on torture.

this is something beyond our control, beyond the any kind of oversight BEYOND the administration.

so do you think if these rare type interrogations, if ever in the future come to light, if ever someone inside leaks definite,undisputable evidence that they are occurring to the public. the people who do these things should be held accountable?

how about the administration that approved of it?

it would be pretty goddamn BAD if we had to go thru this whole thing again even if it was far less extreme than abu garib.

mcdelroy

I'm not sure the ideal America you envision exists. If one has spent any significant time in America one would see that we are an extremely diverse country filled with people who often hold dramatically opposing views on serious issues. Under normal circumstances the debates often get intense, emotional, ugly, and nasty. It appears you consider Americans with views you disagree with contrary to your image of the ideal America. This is natural. In fact Americans actually often feel this way about each other when they disagree vehemently.

America is currently being pushed to the brink from every angle by our enemies. Venezuela, North Korea, terrorists.....all are testing our resolve...this gives rise to debates which are much more intense then they normally might be. As a result those views you disagree with may seem even more contrary to you're ideal view of America.

What you are observing are patriotic Americans who vehemently support their country and want to protect it. To accomplish this they might say or advocate drastic measures. These same Americans very likely live lives which are very much congruent with your ideal view of America. For example, donating time to teach children, assist the elderly, work at hospitals, giving to the poor.

However, these same Americans might also advocate extreme measures regarding the war on terror. You'd be surprised. America's back is against the wall. It may be difficult for you to appreciate these contradictions since you are not in America.

Also, you mentioned that internal American politics don't effect you. However, to Americans, these debates cannot occur in a vacuum unaffected by our internal politics. These debates are very much influenced by and a part of our internal politics. Failing to take American internal politics into account removes significant and relevant aspects to the debates.

Marc

Shek

1. If we let the terrorists maintain the initiative and change our values, then we are losing. If we let our emotions get the better of us, then we are losing.

2. We do not have our backs against the wall. There hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11.

3. The global war on terror is a misnomer. We are not fighting terror. We are fighting pan-Islamists who espouse ideas that lead to action. We must fight the ideas and the propaganda of the pan-Islamists and not play into their hands. Ideas have the power to motivate people, and it's hard to espouse freedom when your actions conflict with the very idea that you espouse.

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

Anon

Opinions are like asssholes. Everyone has one, and most of them stink.

Anon

No offense sir, but i strongly disagree.

The Japanese changed our values. And the minute we were done butchering them in the most brutal combat one can possibly imagine, we changed them right on back ourselves.

It is precisely that ability TO change that has served us so well in the past.

So we should wait till we do? We should allow the enemy to maintain the initiative while rapidly working to achieve the means for mega-death of US citizens? Like we've just foolishly done in Korea?

Seriously.

This is the same foolish philosophy that got Pearl sucker punched in 41, and the WTC blown up twice, with the tragedy that unfolded on 9-11 a clear declaration of total unrestricted warfare by Al Q.

That is simply not true. What is true is that there have been no LARGE SCALE attacks, but there have been numerous smaller attacks by Muslims- both imported and domestic version s- killing and attacking numerous white/latino/black Americans IN America(all over America as a matter of fact), and stating it was a politically/religiously motivated act after they were caught.

Like the Muslim that ran down all those college kids in his SUV about a year ago, for instance.

I can provide links if you like.

Fundamentally, you are espousing the fighting of a war that i feel is destined to end in defeat.
As you say, 'wiser heads must prevail'.

Sure, in order that they may then utterly fail one small appeasing Politically Correct step at a time.

If your actual goal is VICTORY, then IMO the ONLY way to defeat the Pan-Arabic movement is to utterly crush it via the direct application of massive military and economic force. Then cut it up, and divy out the pieces along ethnic lines all across the region. This will create a region with a bunch of states with good solid internal stability(which we want), but one who distrusts virtually all it's neighbors in the process as well(which we really want).

What we're doing is playing a losing game of demographics and allowing the enemy to gather for the coming storm. The truth is, if demographics(both Islamic immigration and Euro emmigration) and conversion rates continue unabated, at some future point Islam is going to VOTE itself into power in a couple nuclear armed 1st world Nations, and then the real fun will start.

This is my opinion. We must play the game, but at some point, this "War" will be quite real, and quite aptly named. And quite ugly.

And we're going to wait until the enemy is MUCH better prepared and starts it at a time and place of their choosing.

I am sure that you know that i respect you and your opinions, but in this matter, i simply disagree. Strongly. Every street sense in my philly head is telling me we should be sucker punching the Arabs in the face with an unopened bottle of Bud right about now. Waiting is foolishness, and we are only going to continue getting punched in the face until we finally get off our barstool and do just that.

Or maybe we won't ever get up...

Parihaka

I don't see anything you've outlined necessitating the use of torture

Anon

It was not my intent to show one.

But since you've asked, the simple, undeniable truth is that torture(and what the article talks about IMO certainly doesn't even qualify as such) has been a highly effective means for the extraction of information for MILLENIA.

That is all the justification i feel we should need when dealing with blatantly murdering savages.

Rest assured, if- for instance- you kidnapped my sister and i got my hands on you, i would torture you until your brains leaked out of your asss if you wouldn't tell me where she was.

The simple solution for the rest of the world is to NOT KIDNAP MY SISTER.

So, don't want your citizens(or others citizens dwelling within your national boundries) tortured?

Don't harbor American killing terrorists.

This is all very simple.

Parihaka

Trust me, after getting to know you, the LAST thing I'd be wanting to do is to cast covetous eyes at your sister

The problem is, where does it stop? Who decides how far down the enemy chain of command does it go? You've just advocated torturing the citizens of a country in which a terrorist resides, not just the terrorist.
Assuming that there are still some in the US, you therefore can torture US citizens who might know of the terrorists whereabouts. Or are we back to the foreign nationals? If so, would it be the English citizens? Or the french? Canadians? Indians? Where's the dividing line? What's the factor that says torture these guys ok, these guys not.
Do you torture OBL? His lieutenants? His driver? The guy who sold him kebabs and might know where he's going? The woman who cleaned his toilet?

Anon

You may recall that after it was posted i read this new law for the terror trials.

I picked out and posted the specific part where it clearly stated that these tribunals and measures ONLY apply to "Aliens", IOW, non-citizens.

That is a good, logical, arbitrary place to draw the line. As to when to apply it, the only honest answer one can possibly offer there is that it's a judgment call of whoever is in command at whatever level the decision is being made.

This is why it is of critical importance to have good leaders.

This is why i so desperately want to see Donald Rumsfeld fling himself from the Tower parapet. And if Dick Cheyney should fall off trying to grab him, well, then that would be all for the better. I would never condone acts of violence against any American politician, but that doesn't mean i can't giggle like a school girl if a particularly incompetent one or few should fall prey to misfortune.

So in summary, i am fine with the authority we've just given, but i want it in better hands than it currently is. I really see no inherent flaw in my thinking in this matter...

Anon

I'm with you on this one.

IMO if you look at this as a long term strategic issue, as you would in a chess match(or as a dictator who is not re-elected every four years would), it is obvious that yes, our backs really are close to being against the wall.

To say otherwise is IMO an act of denial.

I guess some of us are out further on the cutting edge of this thought process, but i'll tell you what, it's a lot more prevelant and accepted now than it was just a couple years ago...which an archive search of WAB for these sorts of discussions(and there have been many) would clearly show.

Ray

Don't give me the propaganda about western civilisation vs barbarism of every other country and race that did not see eye to eye with the West .

I used to believe it. Now, I realise it is all hollow rhetoric to fool the world against those who can compete with the West either militarily or economically.

First, it was the Soviets, then the Chinese and now the Moslems (though I concede that a sizeable numbers are terrorists). Maybe the Soviets and the Chinese were not that reprehensible who locked up their citizens on flimsy grounds! Maybe since I am now in two minds as to whether it was true or mere propaganda!
be
There is now hope that the real truth is getting surface!

It is simply time for you all to open up your eyes and have the moral courage to face reality.

Time to smell the coffee!

PS Note that even your most loyal ally, the Anglo Saxon Britain does not believe a word what you or their PM say. The public are up in arms and there is huge discontent amongst their Army wherein their Chief openly found the war in Iraq a total hoax and a failure as also took up cudgels against his own government - a trait never seen before in the British 'stiff upper lip; Army!

It does not quite go with the State of Union address that says that Bush would go after Terrorists and WMD. Pakistan has both. It also is strategically prudent to go to the root cause rather than nibble at the periphery!

What was it a reality TV show?

Thank you Imam of Mecca, I prefer to stay the way I am. Have a chat with Osama if you are so desperate to convert the world to Dar ul Isam.

There is no emotions involved as far as I am concerned since I am neither an American, nor an Iraqi. Further, I am no Arab and most importantly, notwithstanding your desire to convert me, I am not a Moslem either.

Though I will concede that it pains me to see America buffeted in the storm of the time where it is losing its moral authority which once it had. Lest you contest that, just observe the behaviour of North Korea, Iran or even Pakistan! They wouldn't have dared to do so in the earlier times. Now, they do since they are watching the US being humbled in Iraq and they are finding that notwithstanding the hyperbole of self assumed prisitine morality that was dished out in yesteryears and even now, the US is no better than them. Hence, even others who would have put the moral pressure on the three, are nonchalant and neutral because they now don't believe a word that emanates from the White House or the US.

Terrorism will flourish if one loses one's moral authority by behaving just like the terrrorists.

Could you explain how a country (as per the US) grovelling under tyranny of Saddam and who should have welcomed the US with open arms and garlands for liberating them, has never appreciated this "liberation" and instead are romping with glee and sadistic pleasure in taking on the US Army and its soldiers (highest number of casualities this month)? How come they don't feel 'liberated'.

And you scoff with arrogance at the home truth given by Major Shek about Abu Gharaib!

Time for you to take your veil off!

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Ray

That is the unfortunate story of it all.

Ask yourself, why?

The War on Terror is justified.

There was no quibbling when America went hammer and tongs against the AQ and Taliban. The world applauded. No chirp even emanated from the Moslem countries.

But today?

Soul searching is required and not mere impotent anger and brutal means to translate the impotent anger.

The US should have with calm resolve got to the guts of the issue and given a fitting blow so that the world remembered.

Impotent anger, led to clouded strategy and it has led to this mess.

Anger is not always the right course.

Observe China. It has approached the North Korean issue calmly and with brains. Now the NK is ready to talk.

Anger would have pushed them to the wall and they would have reacted like insane people and gone and precipitated a greater crisis.

Edgeplay_cgo

The present laws have been put into place to avoid the allegation of torture. They define practices that are NOT torture, and prohibit anything more extreme. Since these laws are a part of the political process in a more or less democratic country, I'm sworn to uphold them. And I don't even object to them that much.

You mean the Abu Ghraib sort of thing? That was well within the sort of thing the commanding officer should have been on top of. It was a failure from the lieutenant to the general officer level. Those people should have no careers, and indeed some should be lounging around at Leavenworth. I note that the command structure above BG Whatserface had already detected the problem and taken steps to correct it when the Press got wind of it.

People are always accountable. Laws and orders need to be obeyed. In cases where they are not obeyed, it comes down to an analysis of the situation. That's why commanding officers wear brass on their collars, and why politicians need to be re-elected. If I were POTUS, I would consider sumarily pardoning those involved, if I felt that the greater good of the Country had been accomplished. In most cases, I suppose I'd just throw the perps to the dogs, as was done to an insufficient extent after AG.

Well, brace yourself. The Enemy Press will find some more examples of where Americans acted like Human Beings and screwed up. They'll use that to try to defeat us. <shrug> Get used to it.