- Joined
- Feb 12, 2006
- Messages
- 15,998
- Reaction score
- 3,962
- Location
- Tiamat's better half
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Big whup. DEA arrests people and gathers evidence for use in prosecutions. The CIA isn't gathering evidence, but actionable intelligence, and gathering it from folks whose motives are not dollar denominated. Cop rules do not apply.
The CIA should be empowered to get whatever information they can from them by whatever means produce results.
Big whup. DEA arrests people and gathers evidence for use in prosecutions. The CIA isn't gathering evidence, but actionable intelligence, and gathering it from folks whose motives are not dollar denominated. Cop rules do not apply.
The CIA should be empowered to get whatever information they can from them by whatever means produce results.
So.......The end justifies the means?
Are you suggesting that honour and some principles aren't worth such a danger?And when Dear Leader's newly moralized CIA fails to stop the next major terrorist attack, what comfort will you give the widows and orphans? "Hey, we kept our principles."
There are some things a gentleman will not do or support for almost any end.
Agreed. However something that causes no physical damage when you're talking war and terrorists isn't one of them. :mrgreen:
There are some things a gentleman will not do or support for almost any end.
Agreed. However something that causes no physical damage when you're talking war and terrorists isn't one of them. :mrgreen:
Manners might get you a special dessert at the dinner table, or prehaps a little something extra in the bedroom from a lovely lady you might be courting. In a war manners are of little use with the enemy.
Since when has war ever been gentlemanly(excepting Hollywood and romance novel renditions).
& if, when the facts come out, they prove that physical damage & even murder did take place....Will you still defend them?
Even war has accepted limits under international law. Does Nuremberg ring a bell? ....the Geneva Conventions?....They are the law of the land in our country.
& if, when the facts come out, they prove that physical damage & even murder did take place....Will you still defend them?
You got proof of murder and physical damage inflicted from waterboarding as used by our troops?
If not perhaps you should hold off yourself on calling them nazis and monsters.
At such time that any such evidence does come out we can both look at it then.
So you refuse to answer my question? (note the word IF)
Well before the modern era it had some of the qualities of honour and gentlemanlyness. Gentlemanlyness is not anything soft, Henry V instilled honour in his men by hanging those who did any looting, even his prized archers. It can be firm and even brutal but it is not dishonourable, that is the key.Manners might get you a special dessert at the dinner table, or prehaps a little something extra in the bedroom from a lovely lady you might be courting. In a war manners are of little use with the enemy.
Since when has war ever been gentlemanly(excepting Hollywood and romance novel renditions).
I don't really think that is the point, it is an extremely distressing method, one that few can put up with for more than afew seconds it seems, and is certainly torture.However I have a gut feeling that if the military killed anyone via waterboarding the news would be all over the place such is the hysteria of the anti-waterboarding crowd.
I do know our troops supposedly killed a guy doing the cold cell thing in Afghanistan. They left him naked, wet, and cold and he died of hypothermia. I don't support that. I don't think they intended on killing the guy but at the same time they should be schooled enough on the techniques they're using to see to it they don't accidentally off people.
I don't see the point in engaging in your hypothetical. If such evidence came out I'd certainly read it and see if my position needed to be re-evaluated.
However I have a gut feeling that if the military killed anyone via waterboarding the news would be all over the place such is the hysteria of the anti-waterboarding crowd.
I do know our troops supposedly killed a guy doing the cold cell thing in Afghanistan. They left him naked, wet, and cold and he died of hypothermia. I don't support that. I don't think they intended on killing the guy but at the same time they should be schooled enough on the techniques they're using to see to it they don't accidentally off people.
Well before the modern era it had some of the qualities of honour and gentlemanlyness. Gentlemanlyness is not anything soft, Henry V instilled honour in his men by hanging those who did any looting, even his prized archers. It can be firm and even brutal but it is not dishonourable, that is the key.
But the point is yes sure war is dirty and nasty but there are still honourable ways of doing it and they don't include torture in almost all circumstances. I very much doubt you believe that everything is acceptable in war.
Henry V slaughtered all prisoners taken when he defeated the French. I sincerely doubt he'd have had a problem with waterboarding unless we're talking about 2 different people. Henry V of England???
He did so because he had absolutely no choice, or considered that to be the case, the French third line was making an attack and he had 6000 prisoners milling about and who could have easily scavenged for weapons. What he did was considered a war crime even at the time, or the same sort of thing, and was not something he did lightly or bore lightly upon him.Henry V slaughtered all prisoners taken when he defeated the French. I sincerely doubt he'd have had a problem with waterboarding unless we're talking about 2 different people. Henry V of England???
You're splitting hairs. How are you defining "physical harm"? Cuts, bruises, and broken limbs? You're reduced to arguing the legalese of the term torture because you know perfectly well that it's an abuse of human rights. Civilized people don't do things like this.
Well I am not against waterboarding but I have an idea. Lock these guys up in a room with a 2 year old. When the two year old wants some juice, the terrorist will be required to give the child the juice. But then the two year old will naturally not want the juice in that particular cup. So the terrorist will have to figure out which juice cup it is the two year old wants. When he gets to the last cup and the two year old doesn't want that cup either, he will become frustrated and not offer the child any juice. But the child will be persistent that he/she wants juice, just not in any of the juice cups that they have there. After about 1 week, the terrorist will gladly give up any information needed, in order to escape the clutches of a two year old with an illogical desire for a specific juice cup that does not exist.
He did so because he had absolutely no choice, or considered that to be the case, the French third line was making an attack and he had 6000 prisoners milling about and who could have easily scavenged for weapons. What he did was considered a war crime even at the time, or the same sort of thing, and was not something he did lightly or bore lightly upon him.
He ordered tons of unarmed prisoners killed and you're citing him as an example of honor in comparison to our horribly dishonorable government pouring water on peoples heads!!!!!!!!!!!!
bwahahahaha
He ordered tons of unarmed prisoners killed and you're citing him as an example of honor in comparison to our government pouring water on peoples heads!!!!!!!!!!!!
bwahahahaha
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?