At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
George calls me naive. He could be right. I used to think of us as the good guys. We wore the white hats. We were the ones who stood up against human rights violations in the world. We walked the walk, and we were proud of it, too. No, we didn't torture. And no, I'm not the only one with those ideals.. Because I believed in them, I spilled my blood for my country.
But, maybe George is right. Maybe we're not any better than the scumbags who attacked us. I thought we were. But, I was wrong. We torture. I never thought we would. George calls the guys we torture murdering SOB's - and they are. That’s why it’s ok to torture them.
But, in the past, we didn’t abstain from torture because of who our ENEMY'S were. We abstained from torture because of who WE were. George thinks we should abandon those principals. I don’t.
In fact, not only do I believe we can win a war without destroying the Constitution, but I believe we can do it without torturing our prisoners.
If my belief in those ideals and the rightness of our cause is naive, then I plead guilty.
excon
PS> (edited) Tom AND DC too, will most likely dig up something Clinton did or Carter did, and say that Bush isn’t doing anything different. To that, I say bunk!
excon: "We were the ones who stood up against human rights violations in the world."
Fact: "During the Civil War, Lincoln exercised powers no previous president had wielded; he suspended the writ of habeas corpus and frequently imprisoned accused Southern spies and sympathizers without trial."
Fact: "After repeated difficulties with General George McClellan and a string of other unsuccessful commanding generals, Lincoln made the fateful decision to appoint a radical and somewhat scandalous army commander: General Ulysses S. Grant. Grant would apply his military knowledge and leadership talents to bring about the close of the Civil War. Lincoln authorized Grant to used the scorched earth approach to pacifying the South. This allowed Generals Sherman and Sheridan to destroy and loot homes, farms and cities in Virginia, Georgia, and South Carolina. The damage in Georgia alone was in excess of 100 million dollars." Civil War Battles: Abraham Lincoln
Lastly, an anecdotal fact: My grandfather told me that his dad told him that without sweet potatoes they would have starved in Georgia, late 1860's. Perhaps, excon, you watched one too many "Roy Rogers" or "The Lone Ranger" programs growing up. Keep in mind, when the constitution was written, bullets weren't flying.
To suggest that America is no better than The Terrorist is parroting al Qaeda, our enemy.
Hello again, wrong wingers:
So, what's your point? That we ARE scumbags too and always have been? That we ARE no better than those who attacked us???? That we're NOT the good guys? DC is right. You are parroting our enemy.
If you're NOT saying the above, what the hell are you saying?
My point is that I don’t agree with the way you are using the words “Good” and “Bad.” Also you are supporting the notion that American methods of conducting a war is no more ethical than al-Qaeda terrorist.
How about Bill O'Reilly on those who like to be thought of as 'good guy or gals':
"John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama all say "waterboarding" is torture and should be outlawed. So let's assume it will be after President Bush leaves office. Let's also assume that most captured terrorists will not give up their comrades under standard Geneva Convention interrogation methods.
"Who wins under that scenario? Well, it looks like the terrorists do, right? With "waterboarding" out and chatting in, the bad guys have one less thing to worry about. Do you feel safer knowing name, rank and jihad number are all that's required of a captured al-Qaida terrorist?
"And then there's Pakistan. What exactly are the candidates going to do about that country? I understand that change, hope and health care are big themes this year, but I'd like my health care program to include not being blown up by fanatical killers trained in Pakistan.
and, "The American people need to wise up. Yeah, the presidential horserace is fun and interesting. But on vital questions of the day, the candidates spit out flimsy general rhetoric and walk away.
Why stop at torture??? Why don't we strap a bomb to some kid, or retarded person, and send 'em into some crowd of enemies and blow 'em up, to make a point??? They are the enemy because of what they do, and how they do it.
I have to admit again this is not an easy thing for me to reconcile. I agree with you and the married guy that if I were put in a situation where I knew of someone that had information that would save a life I'd have no problem either trying to scare the hell out of them or beat the info out of them.
The question is do we afford these unlawful enemy combatants the same rights and privileges as a lawful combatant? If we should, why? Andrew McCarthy put it this way:
Quote:
On the Third Geneva Convention, literal terms aside, I believe it is a betrayal of the treaty's civilizing impulses to grant its benefits to those who refuse to take up its burdens. Geneva's raison d'etre is to impel warriors to conform to its civilian-protective standards. If you reward barbarity by treating terrorist operatives as if they were honorable combatants, you are guaranteeing more barbarity.
How do you grant civil rights to those determined to use any terroristic and oppressive means at their disposal to attack civilization itself? There IS a difference between us and them, we are trying to preserve civilization and they are trying to destroy it. Dr. Keith Pavlischek put it this way as to what we must do, "whatever non-state terrorists are owed, they don't deserve the same "rights" as honorable warriors captured on the field of battle, and from there seek to explain just what is and is not owed to them."
We don't do it because of who they are, Steve. We do it because of who we are.
I get that, ex, but who are we if we don't do all we can to protect the people? What if we could have gotten information to save thousands - even millions of lives - through less than ideal means but didn't? What would people say while burying the dead? What are they owed? What do we owe the world? What's acceptable and what isn't? What is justice in these cases? Try as I might I just can't see it as black and white as you want us to see it, and I don't see anyone really telling me where exactly the line is or what the solution is.
but we gotta do something about that stuttering.
. Lucky you, we both agree with you.
they usually are never in agreement....oh poor Mr. Allheart 
Linear Mode
