rvg, some couple of years later?

[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?

[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.

[Papewaio]

Okay so let's see...
Has the fact that they were actually tortured been proven in court?

Reciprocity it's like a wheel you know. Just remember that your standards state people are guilty until proven innocent. If we don't need a court of law to prove that a terrorist is or is not in fact Joe Average, we don't need a court of law to rubber stamp any other facts or rumours.

Just remember these aren't my standards these are yours applied across the board.

[Vuk]

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