Remind me again why we should treat enemy combatants

[ChicosBailBonds]

under the Geneva conventions?  Wasn't McLaim's argument that if we treat their prisoners badly that they would treat our prisoners badly.

Earth to McLaim....they already are. 

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture1.html

[SoCalwarrior]

So we should torture because Al Qaeda tortures? 

Two reasons why we shouldn't torture. One, we are not barbaric, but rather a civilized nation and people who agreed to act as such.  And two, physical torture rarely yields true information.  When you poke a man's eyeballs out, he'll tell you what he thinks you want to hear for you to stop.

[tower912]

Of course they are.   But if we are truly to be a "beacon" to the rest of the world, we need to hold ourselves to higher standards.   If we willingly allow ourselves to drop to their level, with some even celebrating it, how can we continue to make the argument that our way of life is the one the rest of the world should emulate.    It is a tough argument to make, because the urge for vengeance and to punish the enemy as much as possible is very strong.   But when you go down that road, you forfeit the moral high ground and give weight and an element of truth to the accusations made by the extremists and make it easier for them to recruit the impressionable.  That is what made Abu Ghraib so painful.   Some of our soldiers were torturing Iraqis in the same place that Saddam did.  A huge blow to our national reputation and moral standing.
   And, as soCal says, intel gained through torture cannot be trusted.   On a much smaller scale, kind of like when you tell your wife "yes, dear" just so she will shut up. 

[Pakuni]

Tower and SoCal already said it, but I suppose it wouldn't hurt to repeat:

We shouldn't torture because they do.

Ignoring what the rest of the world thinks - because world opinion generally is overrated - how do we face ourselves when we become the very thing which we claim we are fighting? How exactly do we place ourselves on the moral high ground while taking part in behaviors we label cowardly and barbaric when it's the other guys doing it? And how do we claim outrage over the actions of our enemies when we engage in similar conduct?

I'd say we cannot do any of the above, and if we cannot "Win" this war without resorting to barbaric behavior, then the war already is lost.

[ChicosBailBonds]

So we should torture because Al Qaeda tortures? 

Two reasons why we shouldn't torture. One, we are not barbaric, but rather a civilized nation and people who agreed to act as such.  And two, physical torture rarely yields true information.  When you poke a man's eyeballs out, he'll tell you what he thinks you want to hear for you to stop.

You'll have to excuse me, but waterboarding and putting a pair of panties on someone's head isn't close to what these animals are doing.  Yet the left gets hot and bothered because we made someone stay up all night.  Good grief.


"Do not fear the terrorists, they are moms and dads too"
-Rosie O'Donnell

[jutaw22mu]

i agree, we should not torture b/c al qaeda are.  the degree to which they torture people is disgusting.  they have no regard for human life (they'd fit right in with pro-choice people). 


however, i think our methods to extract information are reasonable.  not allowing them to sleep is not barbaric at all and it produces results.  i view it as a creative civil technique.

nice quote by rosie o'donnell.  it goes to show just how messed up she is and how anti-american she is.  i do think many liberals distance themselves from her, most are reasonable and she is not.

[SoCalwarrior]

I'm not sure Chicos could make a point without quoting Rosie O'Donnell.  Nevertheless, this issue has nothing to do with the right or left.  Thankfully, the majority of Republicans and Democrats don't believe we should tourture just because Al Qaeda does.

[ChicosBailBonds]

[Mayor McCheese]

i agree, we should not torture b/c al qaeda are.  the degree to which they torture people is disgusting.  they have no regard for human life (they'd fit right in with pro-choice people). 


however, i think our methods to extract information are reasonable.  not allowing them to sleep is not barbaric at all and it produces results.  i view it as a creative civil technique.

nice quote by rosie o'donnell.  it goes to show just how messed up she is and how anti-american she is.  i do think many liberals distance themselves from her, most are reasonable and she is not.

throw in a hit at pro-choice... sorry that we value human rights to a different extent.  You value the right of a fetus, we value the right of the mother.  You think that since I don't believe that white males in congress should decide what a females choice should be.  And yes, Rosie O'Donnell does not represent us liberal progressives.

[Pakuni]

And that's why they're terrorists and we're not.

I'm sorry, Chico's, but I'm not sure really what you're getting at. Yes, terrorists are horrendous people who commit horrendous acts. Does that mean we should commit like acts in kind? And if it does, what makes us any better than them?

p.s. Likening pro-choice folks to terrorists? Cheap shot.

[Pakuni]

You think that since I don't believe that white males in congress should decide what a females choice should be.  And yes, Rosie O'Donnell does not represent us liberal progressives.

I was right with you up until you got here.
Why should white males be barred from making laws that effect female choice?
Does that mean Nancy Pelosi should recuse herself when it comes to federal funding for prostate cancer research?
Should Barack Obama be barred from voting on legislation dealing with immigrations from Mexico?

A government official like yourself, Mr. Mayor, should know better.

[mu_hilltopper]

I think the immediate response to that one would be "National governmental officials should stick to legislation that has national significance.  A woman's right to choose is personal, individual, and private, a right that's not yielded to the government.  Roe v. Wade is based on that right of privacy, and that's why it's the law of the land."  ("No right of privacy in constitution" argument in 3..2..1...)

Well, that's what I heard, anyway.  I'm not a law talking guy.

[spiral97]

A little over 2 centuries ago the standard way to fight was for both sides to form ranks out in an open field without any obstructions in between them and just shoot it out - the winner being the side who still had people left over afterwards.  Then along came us Americans who really pioneered the guerrilla war tactics and fought from cover.  At the time, the British considered us to be horrendously barbaric cowards and they continued to be the "beacon" to the rest of the world, and steadfastedly held themselves to "higher standards".  Ultimately they lost and the new American style of warfare gradually became the doctrine across the world.

Such a strange parallel to what we are experiencing now but on the other side of the fence.  The insurgents are vastly over-matched in terms of manpower, materiel, and technology and are thus resorting to even greater cloak-and-dagger type approaches to fighting.  We experience this and say "what horrendously barbaric cowards they are!"

All this said, I personally feel that their methods are truly barbaric because they do not differentiate between combatant and innocent bystander.  I further do not condone mistreating or torturing POW's - if for no reason than the fact that most of them will likely, at some point, be freed and returned to their country of origin.  I would prefer that they are not returned with any deeper desire to exact retaliation at some point thereafter.

This reminds me of a second historical parallel of sorts that comes up in my mind at times.  In the medieval times, the French would cut off the middle fingers of British POW's as that is the finger used to draw back a bow to shoot an arrow (this gave rise to the offensive middle finger gesture that has continued through today - i.e. "hey I still have my middle finger so go pound sand").  This practice has since been deemed barbaric in most places and thus has been discontinued (never mind the fact that bows have fallen out of favor with most modern armies).  On the other hand, some cultures (particularly those in the middle east) still believe in such measures.  When I lived in Saudi Arabia 10+ years ago, there were still publicly viewable punishment events on a regular basis.  Convicts had hands cut off for stealing, heads cut off for murder, bodies stoned for adultery, etc.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I think this whole beacon thing is great.  I also think you need to compare apples to apples.  We get weakneed over waterboarding for #$&*#^ sake and these guys are decapitating, cutting balls off, maiming, etc.  Night and day differences.

And you know what, ask a WWII vet how we treated some of the enemy back in 1943, 44, and 45.  We were serious back then, we played to win because that's what is ULTIMATELY important.   The enemy was scared of us then, not now.  They just laugh.  They know when we catch them they're going to get 3 squares and a chance to watch Jeopardy at night on the tube.  Yeah, I'm being sarcastic but I guess I don't understand why during WWII we could rough up a few folks under the greatest generation with the clear intent to get information and to demonstrate being caught wasn't a vacation, yet now we can't waterboard someone without everyone getting hot under the collar.

Exactly when did the country take the hard left turn to being soft?  1966?  When exactly was the date because se still haven't recovered.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'm not sure Chicos could make a point without quoting Rosie O'Donnell.  Nevertheless, this issue has nothing to do with the right or left.  Thankfully, the majority of Republicans and Democrats don't believe we should tourture just because Al Qaeda does.

I make points all the time without Rosie, but she's such a treasure trove....like a liberal pez dispensor of idiocy that it isn't hard to just watch her for 3 minutes and grab 4 or 5 of them. 

And I'd like to know what you define as torture because most Republicans I know are all for the tactics we are using which I wouldn't define as torture, yet many on the left do.


If you want a better quote, then here.  "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

[thekahoona]

I think this whole beacon thing is great.  I also think you need to compare apples to apples.  We get weakneed over waterboarding for #$&*#^ sake and these guys are decapitating, cutting balls off, maiming, etc.  Night and day differences....

i agree with dennis prager on this point.  to define that what the united states has done in the wot as "torture" is demeaning to the victims of actual torture.  it lowers the bar so much on torture that it will ultimately have a de-horrifying effect on real torture.

of course, i'm still horrified by the real stuff - but that's because i don't buy into ridicule and embarrassment and non-injurious scare tactics as "torture."

[Pakuni]

I think the immediate response to that one would be "National governmental officials should stick to legislation that has national significance.  A woman's right to choose is personal, individual, and private, a right that's not yielded to the government.  Roe v. Wade is based on that right of privacy, and that's why it's the law of the land."  ("No right of privacy in constitution" argument in 3..2..1...)

Well, that's what I heard, anyway.  I'm not a law talking guy.

Fair enough, but the government makes laws interfering with personal choice all the time.
The government says I can't sit in my living room tonight and snort a line of blow.
The government says I can't shoot up with Deca-Durabolin before I head down to my basement to work out.
The government says I can't drive home from work tonight without a seatbelt.

What makes the personal choice to an abortion any different? Other than the fact it does damage to something other than onself, that is.

Personally, while I find the practice abhorrent, I don't believe the federal government should be in the business of legalizing or outlawing abortion. And the argument that it must be allowed under some phantom, unwritten right to privacy is tenuous at best.

[ChicosBailBonds]

i agree with dennis prager on this point.  to define that what the united states has done in the wot as "torture" is demeaning to the victims of actual torture.  it lowers the bar so much on torture that it will ultimately have a de-horrifying effect on real torture.

of course, i'm still horrified by the real stuff - but that's because i don't buy into ridicule and embarrassment and non-injurious scare tactics as "torture."

You and Dennis win the common sense award for the day....maybe Keith Olbermann will start one.   

[SoCalwarrior]

I'm not sure Chicos could make a point without quoting Rosie O'Donnell.  Nevertheless, this issue has nothing to do with the right or left.  Thankfully, the majority of Republicans and Democrats don't believe we should tourture just because Al Qaeda does.

I make points all the time without Rosie, but she's such a treasure trove....like a liberal pez dispensor of idiocy that it isn't hard to just watch her for 3 minutes and grab 4 or 5 of them. 

And I'd like to know what you define as torture because most Republicans I know are all for the tactics we are using which I wouldn't define as torture, yet many on the left do.


If you want a better quote, then here.  "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

Great quote.  I believe in it 100%.  But you imply that its meaning is "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do evil."

Does it matter what I define as torture?  I only responded to your initial post which was, why are we adhering to the Geneva Convention when Al Qaeda is torturing people.  I answered why I thought we do.

BTW - Are there really Republicans (and I mean in our government, not you and your buddies) that are advocating we break from the way we treat P.O.W.s set forth in the Geneva Convention that we helped draft and signed?

[jutaw22mu]

throw in a hit at pro-choice... sorry that we value human rights to a different extent.  You value the right of a fetus, we value the right of the mother.  You think that since I don't believe that white males in congress should decide what a females choice should be.  And yes, Rosie O'Donnell does not represent us liberal progressives.

im sorry but can someone please tell me what kind of cells a fetus is composed of?  oh that's right, HUMAN cells.  since a fetus is made up entirely of human cells...not dog or plant or cow cells, it should be considered a human child.  i dont understand how human rights apply to everything except a child in a womb (we are much more civil toward terrorists in terms of treatment....meanwhile it appears alot of the terrorists torture methods have been taken right from abortion procedures.)  i hate the word "fetus," it dehumanizes our children.

i dont understand what makes it a womens right to kill her own child and then not be prosecuted for it.  such a woman is a murderer and should rot away in jail.  i believe life is one of the most important gifts that we get from both our parents and most importantly from God.  to be allowed to destroy one of God's creations so easily and without remorse is a true shame.  i view any woman who has had an abortion no better than the terrorists.  

here is what a woman or a man have a right to choose:  they have the right to choose whether or not they should have sex.  by having intercourse both parties involved, in my opinion, are acknowledging that if a pregnancy develops they are ready to care for and love the child.

[mu_hilltopper]

Fair enough, but the government makes laws interfering with personal choice all the time.
The government says I can't sit in my living room tonight and snort a line of blow.
The government says I can't shoot up with Deca-Durabolin before I head down to my basement to work out.
The government says I can't drive home from work tonight without a seatbelt.

What makes the personal choice to an abortion any different? Other than the fact it does damage to something other than onself, that is.

Personally, while I find the practice abhorrent, I don't believe the federal government should be in the business of legalizing or outlawing abortion. And the argument that it must be allowed under some phantom, unwritten right to privacy is tenuous at best.

Couple things, sorry to hijack the thread on torture.  First, the drug examples you give .. we have given the government authority to regulate commerce, and, for drugs, determine what can and cannot be sold for a variety of reasons, public safety being topmost.  Coke isn't safe, therefore it's against the law to snort.  Additionally, Coke heads frequently end up being cared for by the public, either by health care professionals, or the welfare system.  Same with seat belt people, eventually, society pays dearly for idiots who don't wear their seatbelts and crash.  If those who wish to roam free in their seats forgo any and all insurance coverage (which we all pay into) then I'd allow non-seat belt use. -- And yes, I understand the nanny-state slippery slope.  Society draws that line on what they'll accept (seat belt laws) and not (a Twinkie ban so we don't get heart attacks.)

"What makes the personal choice to an abortion any different? Other than the fact it does damage to something other than oneself, that is."  Well, there's the rub.  Your "fact" is in somewhat in dispute.  Some believe life starts at conception, others do not.

"And the argument that it must be allowed under some phantom, unwritten right to privacy is tenuous at best."  -- Except, of course, that it's been settled law for some 35 years.  Again, not a law talking guy.

[jutaw22mu]

"BTW - Are there really Republicans (and I mean in our government, not you and your buddies) that are advocating we break from the way we treat P.O.W.s set forth in the Geneva Convention that we helped draft and signed?"



Yes, his name is John McCain.

[Pakuni]

Fair enough, but the government makes laws interfering with personal choice all the time.
The government says I can't sit in my living room tonight and snort a line of blow.
The government says I can't shoot up with Deca-Durabolin before I head down to my basement to work out.
The government says I can't drive home from work tonight without a seatbelt.

What makes the personal choice to an abortion any different? Other than the fact it does damage to something other than onself, that is.

Personally, while I find the practice abhorrent, I don't believe the federal government should be in the business of legalizing or outlawing abortion. And the argument that it must be allowed under some phantom, unwritten right to privacy is tenuous at best.

Couple things, sorry to hijack the thread on torture.  First, the drug examples you give .. we have given the government authority to regulate commerce, and, for drugs, determine what can and cannot be sold for a variety of reasons, public safety being topmost.  Coke isn't safe, therefore it's against the law to snort.  Additionally, Coke heads frequently end up being cared for by the public, either by health care professionals, or the welfare system.  Same with seat belt people, eventually, society pays dearly for idiots who don't wear their seatbelts and crash.  If those who wish to roam free in their seats forgo any and all insurance coverage (which we all pay into) then I'd allow non-seat belt use. -- And yes, I understand the nanny-state slippery slope.  Society draws that line on what they'll accept (seat belt laws) and not (a Twinkie ban so we don't get heart attacks.)

"What makes the personal choice to an abortion any different? Other than the fact it does damage to something other than oneself, that is."  Well, there's the rub.  Your "fact" is in somewhat in dispute.  Some believe life starts at conception, others do not.

"And the argument that it must be allowed under some phantom, unwritten right to privacy is tenuous at best."  -- Except, of course, that it's been settled law for some 35 years.  Again, not a law talking guy.

A few, hopefully quick, points and I'll let it rest.

1. Regarding commerce, an abortion is a medical procedure which, like commerce, the government already holds the authority to regulate. In fact, the government does regulate it by holding medical facilities to standards, licensing physicians who perform the procedure, etc.

2. Lots of unsafe things are sold. Guns. Alcohol. Tobacco.  Likewise, alcoholics and lifelong smokers often end up being cared for by the public and, in many instances with alcoholics at least, become negative influences on the greater good of society.

3. My fact is not in the least in dispute. Abortion does harm something. Whether that something qualifies as human life has been debated and, more often than not, is decided based upon the circumstances. If a woman aborts a three-month fetus, it's not a life under the law. If a drunk driver crashes into a pregnant woman, killing her three-month fetus, he's going to prison for ending a life. The bundle of cells is identical. The only difference is the circumstance of its destruction. Weird, huh?

4. Regarding the phantom right, you miss my point. There is no written right to privacy in American law, and certainly not one to an abortion, Rather it's a right that, depending on which legal scholar you are speaking, is implied.

Again, I'm not particularly pro- or anti-choice. I think it's a moral wrong, but it's not exactly the only moral wrong that is completely legal in this country.
However, I think  most of those who argue that a fetus does not qualify as a human life, at least a form of human life, are merely deluding themselves so they can be in favor of abortion and still face themselves in the mirror.

[mu_hilltopper]

I, too, will give my final points and let it rest.

A few, hopefully quick, points and I'll let it rest.

1. Regarding commerce, an abortion is a medical procedure which, like commerce, the government already holds the authority to regulate. In fact, the government does regulate it by holding medical facilities to standards, licensing physicians who perform the procedure, etc.

True, it is part of commerce, and the government does regulate licensing and standards.  I'm not a doctor, but I imagine they even specify what procedures are acceptable, as in double-bypass surgery is ok, but octuple bypass is not. -- However, we do not allow our government to regulate necessity or, perhaps, morality.  If we want liposuction, we can have it whether it's for vanity sake or not. If we think we're pre-disposed to breast cancer and want ours lopped off, we can do that too.  Both of these examples have risk, and the government "allows" us to decide our medical path ourselves.  (Or rather, we withhold that right from the government to force care, if we're judged sane.)

2. Lots of unsafe things are sold. Guns. Alcohol. Tobacco.  Likewise, alcoholics and lifelong smokers often end up being cared for by the public and, in many instances with alcoholics at least, become negative influences on the greater good of society.

And each of those examples of unsafe things are, like Coke, regulated.  And constant attempts are made to make each illegal, some of which (Prohibition) succeeded for a time.  Society pulls and tugs one way and the other to regulate those things and their legality, based on public health and economics (of shared health costs.)   Guns, Booze, and Tobacco (and Twinkie) users have significant constituencies that refuse to allow society (government) to ban it, even though it's bad for you.  Coke, society has drawn the line.  What it amounts to is, the government can ban some things that are bad for you, but not others.  No surprise there.

3. My fact is not in the least in dispute. Abortion does harm something. Whether that something qualifies as human life has been debated and, more often than not, is decided based upon the circumstances. If a woman aborts a three-month fetus, it's not a life under the law. If a drunk driver crashes into a pregnant woman, killing her three-month fetus, he's going to prison for ending a life. The bundle of cells is identical. The only difference is the circumstance of its destruction. Weird, huh?

"Abortion does harm something".  Well, I suppose that phrase is true.  However, as I suggested, some in the US would equate that to, say, clipping toenails which "harms something" as well, namely, the toenail.  (I do not believe this, but some do, and that would be their argument.)  Your example of the drunk driver .. not sure what that's supposed to illustrate.  Abortion in this country isn't legally murder.  Whether there are some states in the Union who've decided to enhance criminal penalties for involuntarily killing an additional fetus, would more indicate some ability to stretch logic.  However, I can see it being figuratively justified by suggesting our society is more protective of certain classes of people, police, children, the handicapped, and pregnant women, and therefore the killing of one in those classes would warrant a greater societal outrage and higher criminal penalties.

4. Regarding the phantom right, you miss my point. There is no written right to privacy in American law, and certainly not one to an abortion, Rather it's a right that, depending on which legal scholar you are speaking, is implied.

I don't think I missed your point, you are correct.  It is implied.  My point may have been missed though:  Implied or not, it is the law of the land.  Whether it remains the law will be determined by how US society elects its presidents and how respectful the appointed judges are to settled law.

Again, I'm not particularly pro- or anti-choice. I think it's a moral wrong, but it's not exactly the only moral wrong that is completely legal in this country.
However, I think  most of those who argue that a fetus does not qualify as a human life, at least a form of human life, are merely deluding themselves so they can be in favor of abortion and still face themselves in the mirror.

You know what?  I agree with that paragraph 100%.  Truly, all the other stuff is just dancing around the subject.  -- I have enjoyed this respectful discussion!

[muarmy81]

I think this whole beacon thing is great.  I also think you need to compare apples to apples.  We get weakneed over waterboarding for #$&*#^ sake and these guys are decapitating, cutting balls off, maiming, etc.  Night and day differences.

And you know what, ask a WWII vet how we treated some of the enemy back in 1943, 44, and 45.  We were serious back then, we played to win because that's what is ULTIMATELY important.   The enemy was scared of us then, not now.  They just laugh.  They know when we catch them they're going to get 3 squares and a chance to watch Jeopardy at night on the tube.  Yeah, I'm being sarcastic but I guess I don't understand why during WWII we could rough up a few folks under the greatest generation with the clear intent to get information and to demonstrate being caught wasn't a vacation, yet now we can't waterboard someone without everyone getting hot under the collar.

Exactly when did the country take the hard left turn to being soft?  1966?  When exactly was the date because se still haven't recovered.

Chicos,
Great point, being a military guy I can personally atest to the emotions and physical anger myself and my peers have gone through witnessing terrorist tactics.  Sometimes it is very difficult to overcome and "rise to the higher moral ground".  Those that think the interrogation tactics we utilize are barbaric or considered torture haven't witnessed the destruction wrought on innocent civilians as terrorists tried to attack an Iraqi convoy with an VBIED (Vehicle Born IED) and only hit an elementary school for girls.  Yes, our society is "civilized" and recognizes that torture is wrong, barbaric, unethical, etc but those who have lived or operated in the Iraqi culture don't understand how "civilized" actions appear to iraqis.  If you arrest an IED maker and put him in jail for 10 years (the standard sentence in Iraq) he, as well as his peers, laugh because its a weak or soft consequence.  Why is prison a sign of weakness?  Because under the previous regime if you were found guilty of stealing a loaf of bread or not bowing when you met saddam he simply shot you in the leg.  Living under a cloak of fear and intimidation and suddenly seeing what democracy is like has been a bit too much for these people.  Talking with an Iraqi general last year who was an Iraqi officer in Saddam's army he relayed this story:
Nowadays, many terrorists shoot rockets or mortars into our military FOBs or camps.  We normally search out the location of the round and many times find empty tubes or a few rounds laying around so we go house to house and ask who did it and of course nobody says a word for fear of being hurt by the terrorists who fired the rounds.  We asked the General what they used to do and he said they would go back to where they "think" the round came from not necessarily where it actually came from and they'd kill all the livestock in that area and tell the people that if another round came from this direction they'd be back to kill their family.  You think another round came from that area?  hell no because if somebody suspicous came into their neighborhood they were watched and monitored like a hawk for fear of losing their loved ones.  So we asked what the Iraqis planned on doing once the Americans left.  "We'll go back to how we used to do it" he said.  My Iraqi counterpart also wanted more public hangings for any kind of crime, theft or murder, or even jaywalking to restore law and order but of course US command won't allow that so in the meantime they have to follow suit with what we do all the while waiting for the day when we leave and they can go back to business as usual.