Democrats versus Republicans

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by sck5

chuckles

Your last post sounds just like a lot of democrats when they criticize invading Iraq and say that we should use police methods against Osama. You sure you're a Republican? I have to say it would be a great thing to see Osama put in the general population at Riker's Island which is where murder suspects go in NYC to await processing. I suspect his processing would be somewhat expedited by the inmates.

And what do we do Re the underground organization that's going to respond with wholesale slaughter after Osama is arrested, or the next time something is done that, although thoroughly legal, upsets people that resent freedom?

What do we do Re the regimes that support this nonsense? Presumably, you're stuck with these regimes enforcing the laws they've ignored by enabling these organizations.

What happens when we arrest Osama and/or invade these regions to execute police actions? Won't those masses and structured underground organizations rise and counterattack the US for daring to arrest a folk hero, violate "sovereignty," and or thwart the regime in Q?

Thanks to the influence of the intellectuals behind your POV, it's already too late for the US/West to win this thing without paying a serious price, and waiting increases that price exponentially.

[sck5]

"Methinks sck5 has been hoist by his own petard! He holds President Bush personally responsible for unauthorized criminal acts committed by low-level soldiers, but when an embarrassing Che Guevara poster is hung in his beloved candidate's campaign headquarters, he says, with a completely straight face, "That poster was put there by a stupid, unauthorized, low-level staff member."



Big difference. The Dems arent trying to defend the poster. (Which after all is only a poster). The Administration is hellbent on torturing people and the Republican party seems to applaud it as a great thing to do.

And do you REALLY think that a bunch of sergeants in 3 different countries just accidentally hit upon the same torture methods by coincidence? Come now. Have the courage to admit what is obvious - It is a matter of policy to do it - Most people here on this site are straightforward in their support and dont try to hide behind low level guys executing the policy.

[chucklesR]

[quote=sck5;268318
Big difference. The Dems arent trying to defend the poster. (Which after all is only a poster). The Administration is hellbent on torturing people and the Republican party seems to applaud it as a great thing to do.

QUOTE]

Sck, I'll give you credit where due, you have a lot of personal fortitude to keep coming back for more. I applaud that.


Tell ya what, We'll tie up your wife and kids (if you have them), and put a ten minute fuse on a bomb that blows then away.
Then I'll give you a gun, a pair of pliers, a waterboard set up which ever you prefer and point you to a guy strapped to a chair. This guy knows where they are and a phone number you can call to turn off the bomb, but cares not a fig's worth if they die, instead he hates them on a personal level and hopes he can not only kill them, but kill you when he gets loose.

Go for it.

Make it personal and watch the opinions change.
Some folks take perserving the silly folks who can't babysit themselves to be their responsibility, it is personal, always has been, always will be.

Thank them. Thank them for getting their hands and souls dirty for you.

Quit disparaging them until it is your family and you let them die because you don't torture or believe in it. Start believing in torture simply because they (the other side) does, and they will use it willingly, immediately and very, very personally.

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by sck5

The Administration is hellbent on torturing people and the Republican party seems to applaud it as a great thing to do.

You've posted many convenient presumptions, psychologizations and errors, but this one wins, hands down.

The administration seems to be fighting for the right to interrogate as circumstances allow. That's nowhere near the sort of assumption made here -- the kind of assumption the Left always falls back on.

Let's, however, assume you're right.

WHat of it?

The administration would still have to present valid argument for torture, IRRESPECTIVE of their motives -- which they have, BTW, along with tangible results

And do you REALLY think that a bunch of sergeants in 3 different countries just accidentally hit upon the same torture methods by coincidence? Come now.

It's probably not a coincidence. However, that doesn't mean that there was a conspiracy and/or a sanction of the unsanctionable.

I'll take it a step further: the police should be entitled to use similar methods under similar circumstances on American citizens.

People on your side of this non-issue forget that there's no such thing as a right to withhold information during investigations. They also forget that the 5th Amendment was intended to protect the accused during cross-examination by the prosecution, so that a learned trickster couldn't get the accused to say something that would make him look guilty(this was before the accused had the right to a lawyer, a practice I'm not onboard with.) The 5th was not meant to endow the accused with the right to obstruct justice and/or endanger lives through silence. In short: your side doesn't have a leg to stand on, even if torture is abused at times. (Would you ban cars because specific cops have misused vehicles on occasion?)

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by chucklesR

Thank them. Thank them for getting their hands and souls dirty for you.

Seriously.

Benevolent people that have undertaken to defend this nation by participating in the military come back affected by what they see and do.

That they do it even though such consequences are foreseeable is not only the stuff of heroes, but seriously cheapened with the "arguments" presented against what amounts to contextually proper interrogation techniques.

Nihilism!

[sck5]

Chuckles

Fortitude! I am for it! Actually this is fun. I think it is very important to see how your opponents are thinking. It gives a taste of what screams we will hear when the next Pres. actually starts to get us out of Iraq as it seems he will be elected to do.

Besides that, if it ever comes to a threat from the outside we are all on the same team. It should be obvious by now that none of us (certainly not me) is "against america". We just differ on the best method to achieve our goals (i.e. winning)

As for your Jack Bauer scenario there isnt one of us who wouldnt get out the pliers in that situation. But that isnt what is going on in the real world. There isnt a nuclear bomb under los angeles and nobody has my wife tied up on top of it. We are talking about a bunch of cave dwellers who in fact are less dangerous than the communists (who we didnt torture and from whom we got many defectors because they thought we were the side of truth and justice) I dont want to diminish the importance of the fight but it is NOT the most dangerous fight of our lifetimes.

[sck5]

Ragnar says

"I'll take it a step further: the police should be entitled to use similar methods under similar circumstances on American citizens."

A Slippery slope indeed. Ragnar you are already quite a ways down it. Innocent until proven guilty? Bah. who needs it? bunch of pussies.

[chucklesR]

Ragnar " I'll take it a step further: the police should be entitled to use similar methods under similar circumstances on American citizens."

Having worked with many police officers I mean no offence when I say I would not trust "most police" to be able to make the decision on when and where to applie the "similarity" rule. Given some of your posts I would certainly not extend that option to you.

I don't want to be knee capped by a nine mil because a police officer thinks I know something I don't know.

Also, altho we seem to agree on the appropriateness of using methods of torture to offset terrrorism, it is not a "non-issue", it is a issue for many.

Your interpetation of the 5th is little opinated and presumes intention I find short of fact.

Fifth amendment (actual text, without annonations):

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


The Bill of Rights, of which the 5th is a small part of springs from English common law.
From Wikipedia:

Historically, the legal protection against self-incrimination is directly related to the question of torture for extracting information and confessions.[2][3] The legal shift from widespread use of torture and forced confession dates to turmoil of the late 16th and early 17th centuries in England. Anyone refusing to take the oath ex-officio (confessions or swearing of innocence, usually before hearing any charges) was taken for guilty. Suspected Puritans were pressed to take the oath and then reveal names of other Puritans. Coercion and torture were commonly employed to compel "cooperation." Puritans, who were at the time fleeing to the New World, began a practice of refusing to cooperate with interrogations. In the most famous case, John Lilburne refused, in 1637, to take the oath. His case and his call for "freeborn rights" were rallying points for reforms against forced oaths, forced self-incrimination, and other kinds of coercion. Oliver Cromwell's revolution overturned the practice and incorporated protections, in response to a popular group of English citizens known as the Levellers. The Levellers presented The Humble Petition of Many Thousands to Parliament in 1647 with thirteen demands, of which, the right against self-incrimination (in criminal cases only), was listed at number three. These protections were brought to the American shores by Puritans, and were later incorporated into the United States Constitution through its Bill of Rights.

[danjarch]

A few words from an independent,
I think you guys should drop it down a notch. For the record I'm against water boarding or any other turture. It gives more false leads then good leads and is morally wrong. No one has yet to prove that we've received one true and actionable lead that we hadn't already obtained through legitamate and noncontervesional means. That should end the debate but probably won't. Second, the staff member who hung the che flag probably would have rethought it if some one talked to him about the real history behind the cuban revolution. He has probably been sold on the socialized medical system, at least the idea of it. I can't begin to count how many times I've heard or seen other historical figures misunderstood by later generations or foreignors. Adam smith has to be one of the most often misquoted men of all times, and there is already a building illution around Martin Luther King and most people my age and younger would be hard pressed to tell you who Polepot was or what he did. Nor will I be overly suprised if my soon to be born child dosen't know very much about Saddam Huesan when they are finally able to vote.

On a lighter note. It is a rumor in the consperisy world that the NSA has a secret program the atomacticly records any telephone conversation when the words President and bomb are used. Imagine how swamped they are with Obama for president

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by sck5

Ragnar says
Innocent until proven guilty? Bah. who needs it? bunch of pussies.

Nice theatre, but you've, once again, dropped context to get the headline.