Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Question for Conservatives:

59 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

I agree. So where is the disconnect?

Why do you guys worry that we went outside the country and waterboarded a few high placed Al Qaeda to make sure we were getting what we could out of them? That's the thing...you say that the intel is iffy...maybe it is, but get what you can out of them and follow the leads. You might get the next 9/11. You might not. But fuging make sure.

Look, I'm fully aware that it's going to happen one way or another. The way the world works to some extent necessitates these things. But....

A. It should not be institutionalized. There is no need for an infrastructure for these kind of things. These things should not be practiced by regular army, prison guards, marines or even elite combat units (unless in the field) like Rangers, Recon etc. nor ever by run of the mill interrogators.

B. It should be illegal, it should be discouraged, it should be frowned upon and as such be relegated to usage only by top level operatives of the CIA and like organizations. Anything else opens the way for over-dependence on these type of tactics. If people are caught doing these things in isolated events they should be dealt with internally.

This is essentially the way the CIA has always worked. My problem is not with the tactics themselves (because I'm sure the reality is much worse than I can actually imagine) as I am with governmental and public acceptance of such tactics. They should never be accepted, we should strive to be better. So it needs to be what it always has been, "left hand, right hand" thing.

Bush/cheney/rummy tried to legalize it and institutionalize it. Imo this mentality is extremely dangerous to the existence of a republic, as such, it can never be accepted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Bush/cheney/rummy tried to legalize it and institutionalize it. Imo this mentality is extremely dangerous to the existence of a republic, as such, it can never be accepted.

They probably had to watch the video where the other side sawed off that journalist's head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

They probably had to watch the video where the other side sawed off that journalist's head.

and?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

and?

and maybe, possibly, they said to themselves "we can't fight these animals within the rules of the Geneva Convention, it's like bringing a knife to a gun fight".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I wonder if the terrorists say "we can't fight these infidels with the rules of ordinary warfare as they are one billion times more powerful than us, but we can saw an old guys head off" and use that to justify what they do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I wonder if the terrorists say "we can't fight these infidels with the rules of ordinary warfare as they are one billion times more powerful than us, but we can saw an old guys head off" and use that to justify what they do?

I wonder what the heck this post means. Anyone? Bueller?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I wonder what the heck this post means. Anyone? Bueller?

It's postmodern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

It's postmodern.

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

and maybe, possibly, they said to themselves "we can't fight these animals within the rules of the Geneva Convention, it's like bringing a knife to a gun fight".

i'm not sure how what rummy, bush and cheney "may" have said to each other has any baring on how torture should be handled by this country. if you're going to speculate, at least stay on topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

i'm not sure how what rummy, bush and cheney "may" have said to each other has any baring on how torture should be handled by this country. if you're going to speculate, at least stay on topic.

Aren't they the ones that set the "new" policy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

They "should" have said, "Hey, it's illegal! We could get in trouble for this, but gosh darn it, we believe it's such a great idea we are willing to go to jail for doing it!"

Not, "Hey! Lets send them to Eastern Europe or Cuba and do it, it's like we never actually did it then, right? We're scot free!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

They "should" have said, "Hey, it's illegal! We could get in trouble for this, but gosh darn it, we believe it's such a great idea we are willing to go to jail for doing it!"

Not, "Hey! Lets send them to Eastern Europe or Cuba and do it, it's like we never actually did it then, right? We're scot free!"

I think they said "We're not dealing with the Russians or the Germans or the Japanese here. We're dealing with people hell bent on killing as many innocent people as possible to make a statement for their cause. We better change our approach or else."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites