rvg, some couple of years later?

[Beskar]

Saying you would never torture a person or kill a person is nonsense. Everybody will if the stakes are high.

I didn't say that in my little speech, I was more addressing that it is purely situational warranted. If that person x had the answer you need, outright killing him would be very counterproductive, and lets say he co-operated (or didn't), outright killing him would not be desired either.

Obviously if it was a "him or me" situation, I would shoot in self-defence. My goal isn't to necessarily kill, it is just to prevent him from killing me.

There is an obvious morality still in play. Going far beyond the scope of that morality is unacceptable.

Sure in the "him or me" situation I might end up killing the person, I don't deny this fact, but I will take solace I did the best I could before that moment. These are boiling kettle situations where the line can be very sketchy, but being able to understand a situation in context does not give ground to the argument that prolonged detention and torture without a trial is acceptable.

So in a nutshell:
"two-hour bomb on a family member, person obviously guilty, he knows codes and location which can save them"
=/=
"I was loading a truck with weapons before the US marines came up and arrested me, I am now on an island off the coast of Cuba being tortured for three years when I have not got any useful information to supply and no chance of foreseeable freedom"

[Fragony]

I didn't say that in my little speech, I was more addressing that it is purely situational warranted. If that person x had the answer you need, outright killing him would be very counterproductive, and lets say he co-operated (or didn't), outright killing him would not be desired either.

Obviously if it was a "him or me" situation, I would shoot in self-defence. My goal isn't to necessarily kill, it is just to prevent him from killing me.

There is an obvious morality still in play. Going far beyond the scope of that morality is unacceptable.

Sure in the "him or me" situation I might end up killing the person, I don't deny this fact, but I will take solace I did the best I could before that moment. These are boiling kettle situations where the line can be very sketchy, but being able to understand a situation in context does not give ground to the argument that prolonged detention and torture without a trial is acceptable.

The best you could you have done you probably already did at the point where you would even consider it. That is also civilisasation, not really liking it.

[Major Robert Dump]

I'm not going to get into the waterboarding is-or-is-not torture argument, although I do think it is sad that we have to argue this to begin with, considering it was used as a desperate tactic in War of Choice, that we rushed into unprepared, to save peoples skins in a textbook insurgency that the VP warned us would happen in 1992 but apparently changed his mind about 10 years later, sending tens of thousands of troops riding in soft skin humvees and then acting all OMGUS when we started getting mass cals, diagnosing the weapons incorrectly and killing civilians, which fueld the insurgency, then finally figuring it our and patting ourselves on the backs for figuring out even though it was just like what happened in the philippines.

Anyway, it appears the two remaining cases have been closed, in which a CIA agent in Iraq tortured a guy to death and one in Afghanistan did the same thing. In both cases, the agents have been promoted. Even if you support torture 100%, this is appalling, considering they obviously sucked at their job and they got lots of military people working under them in deep, deep trouble.

I hope at least some lessons were learned, and that future detainee guards tell civlian "advisors" to **** off when given illegal orders. But I doubt it.

[Papewaio]

It's not about giving in to fear, it's about putting lives above principles. If you don't want to torture a terrorist in order to prevent an attack, that's your prerogative. Me? I'd light a fire under him in a heartbeat. As for whether or not it is moral or immoral, ask the families of the victims of the terrorist attack that could have been prevented. To me, saving the lives of my compatriots is of higher priority than respecting the rights of a person whose life's aim is the utter destruction of our way of life.

Let us skip things like terrorist cells where information is so limited between group members that leakage is virtually impossible.

I'm fine with your rules of engagement as long as you understand that love, war and diplomacy are all reciprical arrangements.

By your own rules it is fine for an enemy combatant to be tortured if it saves lives of your compatriots. Add in rendition, drone strikes and a new definition of surrender being stark naked with hands up. These are all acceptable methods to fight ones enemies.

Of course the reciprical is also true. So Afghans, Iraqis and any other invaded country can fight back against an occupying power as per the Declaration of Independence as it stats some of the key reasons to being allowed to do so is the use of mercenaries against the population and the lack of trials. Drone strikes certainly are a method of skipping innocent until proven guilty. If you want to use the tack that they were armed, well the right to bear arms doesn't make every American an enemy of the state either does it?

So occupied people have the right to fight back as per the Declaration of Independence.

They also have the right to fight back in a manner the same as their aggressor.

So if they torture American soldiers to find out information that will save the lives of their compatriots that is reciprical.
If they don't take American prisoners unless they are naked and have their hands up that as reciprical.
If they shoot first and ask questions later that is reciprical.
If they behead an enemy in an effort to save lives of their compatriots well that is reciprical too. It just a bit of column A and column B together of reciprical behaviour for drone strikes and torture.

If you are fine with this being the new rules of engagement then as we like to say no worries. If not why not? If its good for the goose it's good for the gander.

Every action or in action has consequences. Just not always the ones we intend. Bit like smoking really.

[rvg]

I'm fine with your rules of engagement as long as you understand that love, war and diplomacy are all reciprical arrangements.

They're terrorists, they observe no rules.

[Fragony]

They're terrorists, they observe no rules.

^- that. Genevaconvention is about war between nations.

[rvg]

Hah. When they first went over them in basic training, the name was simple "The Rules of Land Warfare." We were trained to treat them properly, and according to the rules.

So, this torture memo went against regular Army policies that were actually still in effect 3 years later.

I wonder what their memos are saying...

[rvg]

Mommy, its not my fault, they did it too? I bet you're big on family valus, like most right wingers, right? Why bother teaching those values to your kids if you're not going to apply them to the world?

Oh, wait.. because the lynchpin of your viewpoint is that we are inherently better than them, and because of that its all good. I shouldn't have to explain to you why that is bad.

Is this what you call a rebuttal? Nice try.

[rvg]

Pot calling the kettle black?

Are you saying I'm not right? You're whole point of view revolves around the idea that an American life is worth more than an Afghan life or an Iraqi life. Everything else is just you trying to make it sound rational.

My view is that an innocent life is worth more than the rights of a terrorist. Nothing more.

[rvg]

Orly?
When we detained people in Iraq, especially in the early days, it was 'catch-em-all and sort-em out later.' Lots of innocent people were tortured at gitmo, some of them even US citizens. I believe they were allowed to sue, though I'd have to look up the articles to be sure.

I never advocated torture for the sake of torture, i.e. "let's shake him down and see what falls out."

Either way, your willingness to get into a messy and morally abased situation (i.e. sanctioned torture) led directly to the results you didn't want--innocents being tortured, regardless of their nationality.

Innocent people get sent to prison sometimes. that doesn't invalidate the justice system as a whole.

[rvg]

No such transparency exists here.

That's an entirely different issue. CIA/Military Intelligence aren't subjects to public scrutiny.

[a completely inoffensive name]

That's an entirely different issue. CIA/Military Intelligence aren't subjects to public scrutiny.

So why are you treating them the same as institutions that are?

[rvg]

So why are you treating them the same as institutions that are?

Que?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Que?

Let's walk through it.

Innocent people get sent to prison sometimes. that doesn't invalidate the justice system as a whole.

A typical "Shit happens. We deal with it and accept it." kind of argument.

Because the justice system is relatively transparent, and is generally applied fairly because public outcry is always a possibility. No such transparency exists here.

A reply that this does not apply because we only accept said shit due to the fact that we can look into how and why said shit happened, AKA there is transparency in the system that allows us to understand where things went wrong and attempt ot correct where said error occurred.

That's an entirely different issue. CIA/Military Intelligence aren't subjects to public scrutiny.

Here you accept that the institutions under fire have no transparency and yet you don't recognize the disconnect that without transparency you can't accept when "Shit happens." Because we don't even know if it is an error in judgement or a systematic policy that puts American liberties in danger.

There is no recourse for national security matters (post 9/11) so we must demand more in terms of behavior and make the line in the sand absolutely clear, because we are in a world of pain if we find ourselves on the wrong side of that line due to it being pushed further towards us every time someone says "for the good of american lives...."

Is this clear now?

[rvg]

Here you accept that the institutions under fire have no transparency and yet you don't recognize the disconnect that without transparency you can't accept when "Shit happens." Because we don't even know if it is an error in judgement or a systematic policy that puts American liberties in danger.

Who says that you can't accept it?

There is no recourse for national security matters (post 9/11) so we must demand more in terms of behavior and make the line in the sand absolutely clear, because we are in a world of pain if we find ourselves on the wrong side of that line due to it being pushed further towards us every time someone says "for the good of american lives...."

Demand what you like. Nobody's stopping you. It doesn't obligate me to demand the same.

Is this clear now?

I'm not sure what you're arguing TBH. I was drawing an analogy, i.e "The fact that X is not perfect does not mean it's invalid."

[a completely inoffensive name]

Who says that you can't accept it?

I do. Deal with it.

Demand what you like. Nobody's stopping you. It doesn't obligate me to demand the same.

If you want all American citizens to be regarded as merely criminals in progress, then yeah sure. Nothing obligates you.

I'm not sure what you're arguing TBH. I was drawing an analogy, i.e "The fact that X is not perfect does not mean it's invalid."

I am arguing that you are just being a coward and don't understand that the American life is characterized by a standard of living up to principles in the face of what seems to be invincible odds. We were founded by people who fought against the largest and most dominating empire the world had seen yet. That tradition of pressing onward as long as we can hold our chin up high is what prompted much of American history. Not to say that we have upheld that standard always, but to abandon it completely is to cease being American.

[rvg]

I do. Deal with it.

You do? Oh, okay. Who are you again?

If you want all American citizens to be regarded as merely criminals in progress, then yeah sure. Nothing obligates you.

Um... this is just a total non sequitur.

I am arguing that you are just being a coward and don't understand that the American life is characterized by a standard of living up to principles in the face of what seems to be invincible odds.

Let me guess... says you?

We were founded by people who fought against the largest and most dominating empire the world had seen yet. That tradition of pressing onward as long as we can hold our chin up high is what prompted much of American history. Not to say that we have upheld that standard always, but to abandon it completely is to cease being American.

Rhetoric is nice, but it doesn't replace logic. I see rhetoric here, but no logic.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You do? Oh, okay. Who are you again?

It was a very aggressive joke.

Um... this is just a total non sequitur.

You cannot argue that over the past 11 years the security/intelligence field has grown larger and larger to the detriment of many domestic liberties and there is no sign of it stopping precisely due to the argument that everything we do is so American lives are not killed. When the TSA expands beyond planes, to bus stops, trains and crossing state lines, you are no longer a citizen able to travel freely but a suspected terrorist in perpetuity.

Rhetoric is nice, but it doesn't replace logic. I see rhetoric here, but no logic.

Yeah, you don't. That's a problem.

[rvg]

Quite to the contrary, RVG. Your position is the only one that is logically untenable. I don't know what to say other than to suggest you re-read this thread carefully.

If you have issues with the methods used by our intelligence officers, I understand that. Nobody's asking you to adopt those methods or to participate. However, if you are willing to trade innocent lives for a lofty principle, and I am not, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

You cannot argue that over the past 11 years the security/intelligence field has grown larger and larger to the detriment of many domestic liberties and there is no sign of it stopping precisely due to the argument that everything we do is so American lives are not killed. When the TSA expands beyond planes, to bus stops, trains and crossing state lines, you are no longer a citizen able to travel freely but a suspected terrorist in perpetuity.

We're not discussing some Joe Schmuck who has to take off his shoes at the airport. We're discussing persuading a hardcore terrorist to talk so that an otherwise imminent attack can be averted.

[a completely inoffensive name]

We're not discussing some Joe Schmuck who has to take off his shoes at the airport. We're discussing persuading a hardcore terrorist to talk so that an otherwise imminent attack can be averted.

The legal boundaries we draw at the "hardcore terrorists" are the same boundaries that are drawn for American citizens, because if there is anything that is lofty in this world it is the government definition of terrorist.

[rvg]

The principle isn't lofty, RVG. That's the point. That you think so is actually kind of disturbing. I explained earlier why adherence to these rules is in our enlightened self-interest.

Cube, we're not robots. There are certain situations that require as as decent human beings to make judgement calls. Those judgement calls occasionally might be outside the scope of what the society at large considers acceptable. Rules are great and 99% of the time are applicable. We have to recognize though that rules cannot cover every possible situation. I for once refuse to vilify an operative who saves many at the expense of teaching a terrorist how to breathe under water. If that makes me a bad person, then so be it. Being a slave to rules at the expense of innocent lives is not something that I can accept. Not as an American, but as a human.

The legal boundaries we draw at the "hardcore terrorists" are the same boundaries that are drawn for American citizens, because if there is anything that is lofty in this world it is the government definition of terrorist.

Can you provide an example of us torturing an average Joe?

[rvg]

This has absolutely nothing to do with anything, other than that it is hilarious and ironic.

You don't want to be a slave to rules? Let your government get away with torturing american citizens (or anyone, really) because you are afraid of the bogey man and you're a slave anyway, sooner or later.

What American citizens? Where? When?

[Vuk]

What's an RVG? Red Vision Goggles? Roman Version of God? Ridiculous, Vindictive Guy? Robert's Victim Girls? Rollerblade Vesper Gown?

[rvg]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14453895

There's a freebie.

Okay so let's see...

According to court records filed in the latest case, in 2005 and 2006 Mr Vance and Mr Ertel were working in Iraq for Shield Group Security, a privately-held security company, when they became suspicious the company was making improper payments to Iraqi officials in exchange for influence, and that its employees were engaged in illicit weapons-trafficking and other illegal activity.

The men began feeding information to US government officials in Iraq until, in April 2006, the company confiscated their credentials to enter the Baghdad Green Zone, effectively barring them from the safest part of the war-ravaged country, according to their court pleadings.

Then, US military personnel detained them, confiscated their belongings, handcuffed and blindfolded them and took them to a military base in Baghdad, where they were fingerprinted, strip-searched and locked in a cage.

They were then taken to Camp Cropper near Baghdad International Airport, where they "experienced a nightmarish scene in which they were detained incommunicado, in solitary confinement, and subjected to physical and psychological torture for the duration of their imprisonment - Vance for three months and Ertel for six weeks", the court wrote, reiterating the men's allegations.

Has the fact that they were actually tortured been proven in court?

[rvg]

I'll give you that, but at the very least the bloated intelligence apparatus that has been enabled by the acceptance of torture led directly to these men being illegally detained and deprived of their constitutional rights by our own military. And this after we hired them as mercenaries.

I agree that this is screwed up, but the whole thing ended up where it's supposed to end up: in court. If they were wronged, someone's gonna pay for it.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I agree that this is screwed up, but the whole thing ended up where it's supposed to end up: in court. If they were wronged, someone's gonna pay for it.

Until the law says otherwise....

[rvg]

My point, though, is that the moral line in the sand I was talking about earlier is there for a reason. Once you've crossed the line, it gets easier and easier to cross. The American people will never be able to peacefully take away the blank check on morally bankrupt activities that the government now has access to. It is attitudes like yours that made it possible, and that ensure it will happen again.

So...when Obama authorized killing U.S. citizen Anwar Al Awlaki, was that a "morally bankrupt activity" in your opinion?

[rvg]

You're god-damned right.

See, to me this was a direct application of what I've been supporting. I wanted to see that sonuvabitch pushing daisies years ago. Now, he directly inspired the Ft Hood guy and the underwear bomber, imho he got exactly what he deserved. It was justice.

[rvg]

Was he truly so guilty?

Did he get his day in court? As an American citizen, he was entitled to that. He was never even tried in absentia, iirc, unless it was a military court.

That's the good thing about being president: he can authorize stuff like that just because it's the right thing to do. Whether he was tried in the military court, I do not know. Probably not. What matters though, is that with his death AQAP was seriously crippled.

[rvg]

You trust the president so much?

In this particular case, yes. If I were him, I would do the same.

Last time I checked, reaching out and killing those subjects of yours who frighten you too much to give due process to was the province of Kings, not Presidents.

The subject didn't "frighten" him, the subject incited murderers to kill the innocent. Over 20 innocent people died. The subject was permanently silenced. The president did his duty as a Commander in Chief: he protected the American people.

I also don't see how AQAP was 'crippled.' He was just a propaganda guy. He didn't have the money and he wasn't the boss. AQAP is hurting because the Yemeni government turned against them, not because we blew up some whacked-out american citizen who was in way over his dumb-ass head.

That missile destroyed the ability of AQAP to effectively recruit people in the West. Furthermore, Awlaki as an orator was well spoken enough to attract plenty of donations. He was a very eloquent guy actually. Even ended up in Washington Post.