Yes, they are effectively sentenced to life in prison without trial. What's your point?
The Tokyo trials concerned unlawful acts by lawful combatants.
And the disingenuous difference is?
Nothing, I suppose, as long as you accept that human beings we capture and can transport to GITMO have no human rights, no right to a list of charges, to examine the evidence, counsel, or a legitimate hearing, and will die in prison if we arbitrarily and our sole discretion deem it so. But I don't think that's a position the U.S. "land of the free" should take unless we are willing to admit our rhetoric about human rights and freedom is BS, means nothing in practice and we're no better than a tin pot dictator in that regard when it suits our purpose.
You are looking in the wrong place. Our allies cannot trust The One on the golf course. Our enemies recognize that Obama is weaker than anyone except Boehner and McConnell. They despise us because Obama is weak. he is only a danger to American citizens.I do not think we can ever question again why we are hated by a good third of the planet and distrusted by the majority of the planet (including those we call an ally.)
You conflate the actual mission of the intelligence agencies that comprise the intelligence community and the political instrument that it has become. The intelligence community is supposed to gather intelligence about foreign enemies. Instead it has been turned against American citizens. This is unconstitutional and extraordinarily dangerous. This is worthy of a revolution in and of itself.Our own citizens even distrust our own government with these abilities to spy on and go after us as well.
Trite. Old. Worn out. Hackneyed phrase.This is the real consequence of being the world's police department in the manner we have gone about it.
Grow up. Stop wetting the bed.Where the hell are our ethics? Our principles as a nation given the results we see today from all this?
Torture dehumanises the torturer as the victim.
The difference is that Guantanamo is not U.S. territory as you said it was.
Good morning MMC! :2wave: I don't know if we set an example others will follow but I'd rather be the example than acting like the enemy. I can't deny what they are doing to innocent people is horrible but then those people should be captured, tried, and deat with and I just don't think we should be the ones doing it anymore. Let those countries fight the terrorism in their own countries and whatever happens happens. This may sound a little harsh and I do have the utmost respect for aid workers and journalists but they should know what and where they are going and the risks. As I just said in another torture thread, we need to start thinking of ourselves and our country for once.
Lucky for us we didn't torture.
Lucky for us we didn't torture.
I just don't agree with torture as a means to extract knowledge. Obviously for all the people we've caught since the war on terror began over a decade again, all that knowledge hasn't seemed to help us stop terrorism and it's in fact flourishing in some parts. So maybe there is a different possibly better way to do things which don't involve torturing.
Fine. Try them in military tribunals where classified materials can be used against them. then convict them and execute them. Or let them all go in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.
You are naive. War has always been brutal. If you don't like what you see, politely thank the ones protecting your behind and avert your eyes.
No, we just did things we called torture when done TO us or our allies, but clearly is NOT "torture" when done BY us. It's just "enhanced interrogation" or preferably "EIT" which of course carries with it none of the heavy moral baggage of 'torture.' Hey, it's not just interrogation, it's "enhanced!" Like an 'enhanced' food product! New and improved! Thank you Orwell for showing us the way!! (with an assist from Nazi propagandists, H/T to someone else who posted that earlier)
BTW, anyone know if Frank Luntz poll tested 'enhanced interrogation?'
It makes me feel better too.
But he does have a point. Some of the guys and gals we employed did things they shouldn't have and that is not allowed to happen. It would be bad to let that go.
But at least as important is to stand for what we did allow and to explain why it was the right thing to do.
He is similar to a prisoner of war. An unlawful combatant can, and should be held until the war ends. Or we should have a military tribunal, determine his guilt or innocence and then release or execute him.
This wasn't shoplifiting.
That's a misleading summary of the issues and the result. The facts are different - Germany =/= GITMO, and the Germans actually had a legitimate process that was followed - detailed charges and a hearing and a finding. The "hearings" set up for the prisoners at GITMO were a farce. Kangaroo court is a good enough description, and when decided the Executive branch had six years to set up a legitimate process and deliberately failed to do so.
So the core issue was whether we (the Executive branch) effectively terminated prisoners' rights held under our exclusive control, on land we'd continuously occupied without interference from the Cuban government for a century based on the distinction between an indefinite lease and U.S. owned territory. And the court rationally held that we could not - that the executive branch could not operate without any restraints with regard to those prisoners, and so ordered the Executive branch to provide these prisoners with actual rights to challenge their detention, which is a basic human right.
Well, we can debate whether with perfect hindsight it was the right thing to do, but I'll gladly concede that the times have changed and that those who approved the program were acting with honest motives - to get information needed to protect the U.S. and our people here and abroad.
What worries me, or is a problem IMO, is the attempts to whitewash it and pretend that it was something other than what it was. I don't favor prosecuting anyone for what happened, but I find it abhorrent to cheer it as something we should be proud of or ready to do again. This was torture, and we need to decide if we're a country where torture is accepted as a legitimate interrogation technique.
Well, at least you have achieved a Godwin episode. There's quite a wide difference between the way we conducted ourselves and the way our enemies (past and present) conducted themselves. Your claim of equivalence is without foundation.
The CIA needs to be policed by those we send to Congress to represent us. During the time of waterboarding and other means of making a captured terrorist talk, the Intelligence committee was informed 39 times. During it all, the majority did not have a bit of problem with what was occurring including most Democrats.
As far as I know it's never been an instant process. Perhaps historically, but usually torture was used to extract a confession - of guilt, of spying, of adultry... whatever. When extracting usable intelligence however, one can't just take the word of the person. Usually it starts with simple things that can be verified easily and over time, working towards more difficult intelligence. I would seriously doubt they'd waterboard KSM for short term information ... it's for more general intelligence, names, future plans, routes, information lines, .... all that can create leads to other intelligence that may be worth taking action.I thought it WAS an instant process.
As in... "this guy knows where the nukes are, lets waterboard him"...
Instead, it seems to be a time consuming process.
By the time a KSM gives up any info, it would be obsolete.
Terrorists would adjust their MO's when any of their leaders are captured.
Again with the long process.
What sort of actionable info do you think KSM would have stored in his brain that would be critical in the never-ending "War on Terror"
Do you think he has intricate plots, Osama's phone number, addresses.....what exactly would he give up?
You keep saying that but can't avoid or address the fact that we called waterboarding "torture" and charged our enemies who did it TO us with war crimes. I don't need to and did not claim anything like 'equivalence' except on that narrow issue.
And you have to admit Orwell would be proud of a term like Enhanced Interrogation - gives no hint whatsoever of the intended result, which is to cause enough pain and discomfort and mental anguish, panic, to our enemies that they will talk rather than endure any more of this "enhanced" interrogation.
BTW, it is unfortunate that the Nazi's used the SAME TERM to describe their new and improved "enhanced!!" interrogation techniques, but that's not a problem I created. I've certainly seen far worse examples that qualify for the Godwin rule.
Any government fails in its obligation to its people if it fails in war to do everything in its power to defend its citizens and defeat its enemies. This is easily demonstrated. No government anywhere would choose defeat when victory was available through "immoral" means. No government would ever explain to its people that their defeat was OK because their government adhered to its convictions. Not going to happen.
I don't think you've thought that through at all. Because if you have, then the problem with ISIS and AQ et al isn't what they DO - kill civilians, terror attacks, etc. Those are the options it has to defeat their enemy (us). They can't line up toe to toe, so they're simply fighting the war with the same moral compass - none - that we have, but for practical reasons must choose alternative methods that require them to target innocent civilians, which we'd do in a heartbeat if required to meet OUR objectives.
Do you believe that?
Not all water boarding is equal. EIT falls short of Orwell. In his telling the term would have been Truthful Cooperation Incentives.
In war there is no imperative other than victory.
As far as I'm aware, the Saudis are a large source of ISIS funds, but we don't seem to mind much. They cut us in on the oil deals, so all's good.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?