Hello:

George calls me naïve. 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 naïve, 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 would they torture our people? I say give as good as you get or vice versa.

I don't know were you fought but I was in Laos and Cambodia and the interrogations I witnessed you would call torture. To suggest that America is no better than The Terrorist is parroting al Qaeda, our enemy.

Excon I hear you and I am right there with you.

Bushg, I thought like you did. I was so upset when that young girl (in the photos) was taking so much heat and worse, and we were getting our heads chopped off (literally).

I thought, what's the big deal? She's standing next to a pile of naked bodies, which I gave her credit for, because they looked so dirty. Okay, it's not something I would do, but I wasn't in her shoes and who knows what I would do over there if I saw one of ours getting hurt or worse.

But then...

I saw this show, sorry I can't remember the name. It was actually a documentary that clearly depicted what our fine young men and women were PERMITTED to do. In their hearts they did not want to do these awful things... but did.

I wasn't very proud watching and held back tears when the victims, whose faces we generally see when we visualize "the enemy", shared the torment that they endured at our hands.

My stomach was sick and my heart was low. We are better then this.

I used to think... for God's sake they are beheading us... we need to and should be able to defend "by any means necessary".

Until... I actually saw what that meant.

What's the difference? Why can they take off our heads and we can't torture in return?

Because we know better and our young men and women will have additional mental and emotional scars to contend with.

Let our intellegence and civilized hearts help to lead the world to dignifed ways, not by mirroring the very things we are trying to rid of and change.

The world is never black and white or right or wrong. There are shades of gray and torture sits in that gray area.

If someone kidnapped a love one this same person send you a video tape. On the video a masked man explains terms of the ransom (which you don't have). While analizing the tape someone notices a mirror in the backround and on the mirror there is a reflexion of a picture of man and woman. The woman in the picture is the cleaning lady. The police bring her in for questioning and she requests a lawyer. The lawyer advices her not tell them anything and she is released.

What do you do?

Me.. I'm beating that information out of her.

But lets say I just recognize the person voice I wouldn't torture that person.

I think a lot of Americans are naïve in this regard. Yes, we've always tried to be the "nice guys." But look where it's gotten us. The U.S. gets bullied and scapegoated constantly, usually by enemies who are much weaker than we are. But we're too kind and gentle to fight back, at least with any degree of effectiveness, even though we easily have the capability to do so. And when someone wants to attempt to fight back, like George, they get a huge guilt trip put on them by all of those who want to insist on continuing to play the nice guy role, even though it results in us getting attacked and scapegoated more and more. We've made examples of our enemies in the past, a la Japan in 1945 and Libya in 1986. But people tend to forget and, if we don't do more of that sort of thing, there's going to be more and more terrorist acts directed against the U.S. and Americans abroad. As it is, it may already be too late since we haven't aggressively fought back in the past, because a lot of Americans feel guilty doing so. For the most part, the U.S. has not been a truly aggressive nation and, for the most part, shouldn't be. Sure, we may have occasionally invaded a country where communism was spreading or where blatant genocide was occurring or that had served as gateways for drug trafficking into the U.S. In short, we've taken an aggressive stand against those countries that have engaged in human rights violations, all in the interest of preventing ourselves from eventually becoming likewise victimized. And anyone who truly believes that our nation, strong and proud and guardians of liberty as we may be, is immune from being conquered by forces who don't subscribe to the same ideals of liberty and human rights that we espouse is truly naïve. To this end it is often necessary for us to take a stand which, sadly, involves loss of life, both American and foreign. But when we are the ones put on the defensive, when we are attacked and victimized in spite of, or maybe because of our desire to maintain liberty and freedom for all, then anything goes, and I mean anything ; occupation, torture, nuclear attacks, etc. Our only alternative is to lie down and let them come and get us. And that's exactly what we've been doing.

Quote:

---

PS> Tom 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!

---

The problem is with what Clinton and Carter didn't do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marriedguy

What do you do? Me.. I'm beating that information out of her.

---

Hello Married:

You bring up an excellent point.

I'm not such an ideal fellow in my private life. In fact, I'd do exactly what you'd do.

But, my country shouldn't adopt our vigilantism as policy. Thank God cooler heads than ours prevailed when they wrote the Constitution and the Geneva Convention.

excon

You are right . I can bring up examples of what you call torture during previous times dating back to at least the Phillipine-American war. Philippine-American War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After you read depictions of the brutality of that war I think you would nominate the Bush team for sainthood.

In the documentary that I saw, it seemed that the prisoners really and truly didn't have any information to give, none. And trust me I am furious as heck what has been done and is contiuned to be done to us and those countries that stand by our side.

I still see red, white and blue and a whole lot of stars... when I think about what was done to the USS Cole. I can not even see straight when I think about that. That was a direct hit on our defense and I wanted us to do something... wince... but barely a whisper was heard.

I want us to defend strong and proud and push back as hard as we can, but when it comes to prisoners, I don't want us to torture.

There are ways that dectectives get individuals to admit to a murder, robbery or whatever crime that has been committed and torture is not a part of the interrogation.

We can get out of them what we need, we have brilliant minds and ways to find things out, I think our intellegence level exceeds our need to invoke torture.

And I do have a soft heart - so yes saying no to torture for me, most would think is a given.

I have a rough tough kick where it hurts kind of hubby and he watched the documentary too and was very quiet. I think he too was unsure how right it actually was.

I in no way am faulting any individual who approved or acted out the actions that I saw on the documentary. I was not and will never be in their shoes. I love our military with all my heart and will never 2nd guess them. What I am saying is I think we are brilliant enough to get what we need without resorting to torture.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

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?

excon

excon

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.

"To protect my family, I want the "To protect my family, I want the " option included among presidential powers." Water Over Their Heads - HUMAN EVENTS

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.

Quote:

---

Allheart agrees: Nothing Silly about Tal or his wise words...it's silly to think it's silly.
Allheart agrees: Nothing Silly about Tal or his wise words...it's silly to think it's silly.

---

Thanks Allheart,:) but we got to do something about that stuttering.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Thanx Allheart,:) but we gotta do something about that stuttering.:D

---

LOL that's not stuttering my friend... that's my alternate personality ;) . Lucky you, we both agree with you.

Funny :rolleyes: they usually are never in agreement... oh poor Mr. Allheart :p

Ex,

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."

What are they owed? And what do we owe the world?

Steve

Quote:

---

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.

The Dems and Dumbs would have said it was the failed policies of George Bush who didn't do everything he could to...