An open letter to all those decent American's

Brandon9000 wrote:

boomerang wrote:
I can never understand the argument that other countries do/did it so that makes it okay for us to do it.

Aren't we trying to show these other countries that our way of doing things is better?

If we become more like them, to show them that they should be more like us.....

In my experience on A2K, I have never seen even one post in which someone said that it's okay because other people do it. I have seen people say that it's deplorable and must be punished, but not historically unusual, or as bad as the other side, which is, of course, invariably repeated as okay because everyone is doing it.

I have a position that is similar to "it's okay because other people do it".

I object to our side being prosecuted for abuses unless people who commit the same abuses against us are pursued with the same vigor.

Maybe there would be more support in America for international law if the international community would start going after the people who have tortured American POWs in past wars.

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

I think oralloy just proved my point without me even having to search out examples, Brandon.

However, given a choice between "pursuing the wrongdoers on both sides" and "not pursuing any wrongdoers" I'd prefer to see the wrongdoers pursued on both sides.

It is only when we get pursued for things that other people get a pass on that I start objecting.

0 Replies

Oralloy seems to be advocating a world government.

0 Replies

How does one go after those who have tortured POW's? Their countries won't give them up and it isn't worth going to war over.

Perhaps an International Criminal Court? Is that what Oralloy is advocating? Because, uh, yaknow, there is one.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Given a choice between being a bright and shining example to the world about how things should be done and wallowing in the filth along with the rest of the world, I'd prefer to be the beautiful example.

0 Replies

Before everybody jumps all over my ass I didn't mean the ENTIRE rest of the world.

Many countries mind their manners.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

How does one go after those who have tortured POW's? Their countries won't give them up and it isn't worth going to war over.

Perhaps an International Criminal Court? Is that what Oralloy is advocating? Because, uh, yaknow, there is one.

Cycloptichorn

Odd isn't it that the ICC hasn't been used to stop genocide in Sudan or terrorism anywhere. Perhaps it really isn't the all-purpose remedy that you imply.

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

Before everybody jumps all over my ass I didn't mean the ENTIRE rest of the world.

Many countries mind their manners.

Great. Now you won't even let me have a good wallow from time to time. Kill-joy!

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Oralloy seems to be advocating a world government.

Not until the world adopts rights similar to our Second Amendment.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

How does one go after those who have tortured POW's? Their countries won't give them up and it isn't worth going to war over.

Sanctions maybe?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Perhaps an International Criminal Court? Is that what Oralloy is advocating? Because, uh, yaknow, there is one.

I support the ICC.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Odd isn't it that the ICC hasn't been used to stop genocide in Sudan or terrorism anywhere. Perhaps it really isn't the all-purpose remedy that you imply.

Not odd when you consider that it's not the function of any court to stop crimes.

0 Replies

I was going to post something serious but I can't get the thought of a good wallow with Thomas out of my head....

0 Replies

engineer wrote:

Perhaps I should state "President Bush's adament resistance to Congressional legislation banning torture." I consider that to be the same as "insistance that torture be legal", but others may find the former more acceptable and technically more accurate.

There is no precedence for placing our wartime actions by the military under civilian laws, and for many very good reasons. It would be unwise to do so.

What if we knew a terrorist knew the location of a nuclear device that was set to detonate in 48 hours, and if it was to detonate, we know it would kill at least 3.5 million people, would you as president advocate torture of the terrorist individual in an effort to try to prevent detonation, in order to save the lives of 3.5 million people? I think any president worth his salt would give the go-ahead. This is only one reason among many that would make it foolish to outlaw torture. Thankfully, Bush is a bit smarter than some of the arguments made here.

Not making torture illegal does not mean that we intend to torture or are in favor of torture on a regular basis. Our actions can be appropriately designed and monitored to fit the situation. In the free country we have, we tend to air our dirty laundry for all to see, and thus the problems are aired and corrected, unlike the truly ruthless dictators and terrorists that are cruel and do not treat prisoners any where near as humanely as we do.

0 Replies

I started this thread because of my concern regarding the direction the US government is taking related to the use of torture any fool would know that there is no place in civilized society for this barbaric process, victims will confess to anything under torture; nothing warrants this inhuman practice.

As for Terrorism it is important to understand that there is a very fine line between a Terrorist and a Patriot and the side of the line you are on depends on where you live. I am certain that Bush and his Neocons do not see themselves as Terrorists but there are millions of people around the world that do, and justly so!
It is most reassuring to read the posts, in this thread, and see that those decent Americans are still out there.

In my opinion if the US administration spent the billions of dollars, they are spending on death and destruction, on fighting a war on poverty they would have no need to worry about terrorists As it is their pushing hegemony and terror in the Middle East is just creating enemies for US citizens.
Since Bush started his so called, "War on Terror" millions of innocent people have been killed including over two thousand young Americans and many more of these young people have suffered injuries that have destroyed their young lives Why!
Has it made America a safer place?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

engineer wrote:
Perhaps I should state "President Bush's adament resistance to Congressional legislation banning torture." I consider that to be the same as "insistance that torture be legal", but others may find the former more acceptable and technically more accurate.

There is no precedence for placing our wartime actions by the military under civilian laws, and for many very good reasons. It would be unwise to do so.

While civilian laws probably wouldn't apply to soldiers in combat, Congress does have the power to write laws that bind the military.

okie wrote:

What if we knew a terrorist knew the location of a nuclear device that was set to detonate in 48 hours, and if it was to detonate, we know it would kill at least 3.5 million people, would you as president advocate torture of the terrorist individual in an effort to try to prevent detonation, in order to save the lives of 3.5 million people? I think any president worth his salt would give the go-ahead.

One of Bush's top legal advisors is on record stating that it would be OK to crush the testicles of the children of a suspect in such a situation.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11488.htm

0 Replies

anton wrote:

I started this thread because of my concern regarding the direction the US government is taking related to the use of torture any fool would know that there is no place in civilized society for this barbaric process, victims will confess to anything under torture; nothing warrants this inhuman practice.

I sort of agree, but would like to make an exception for top-level members of al-Qa'ida.

anton wrote:

As for Terrorism it is important to understand that there is a very fine line between a Terrorist and a Patriot and the side of the line you are on depends on where you live.

I think it depends a lot more on what you do.

anton wrote:

I am certain that Bush and his Neocons do not see themselves as Terrorists but there are millions of people around the world that do, and justly so!

Not very just at all. Bush has certainly committed a crime against peace, but he has not done anything that would fit the definition of terrorism.

anton wrote:

Since Bush started his so called, "War on Terror" millions of innocent people have been killed

Millions????

anton wrote:

Has it made America a safer place?

Well, the war on terror has certainly dismantled much of the military threat that al-Qa'ida posed.

Unfortunately, they are still capable of engaging in terrorism.

0 Replies

anton wrote:

As for Terrorism it is important to understand that there is a very fine line between a Terrorist and a Patriot and the side of the line you are on depends on where you live. I am certain that Bush and his Neocons do not see themselves as Terrorists but there are millions of people around the world that do, and justly so!
It is most reassuring to read the posts, in this thread, and see that those decent Americans are still out there.

You have either knowingly or unknowingly revealed your twisted mindset. So a terrorist is almost, just maybe, a "patriot" in your way of thinking. Americans are not terrorists in any way shape or form. Such delusional thinking is an offense and an insult to all decent people around the world. And your type of thinking is truly sick.

Although I do not advocate torture, I would submit to you that torture is far more justified than any kind of terrorist act, wherein totally innocent men, women. and children are murdured or maimed.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

engineer wrote:
Perhaps I should state "President Bush's adament resistance to Congressional legislation banning torture." I consider that to be the same as "insistance that torture be legal", but others may find the former more acceptable and technically more accurate.

There is no precedence for placing our wartime actions by the military under civilian laws, and for many very good reasons. It would be unwise to do so.

What if we knew a terrorist knew the location of a nuclear device that was set to detonate in 48 hours, and if it was to detonate, we know it would kill at least 3.5 million people, would you as president advocate torture of the terrorist individual in an effort to try to prevent detonation, in order to save the lives of 3.5 million people? I think any president worth his salt would give the go-ahead.

Of course, any terrorist worth his salt would lie to you, which is what you generally get with torture. Sorry, but you are pitting the the real, tangible benefits obtained by avoiding having more pictures of Americans torturing prisioners against an extreme hypothetical. US soldiers need to know the rules completely without wiggle room. It is clear to me (if not others) that there was a culture at AG that condoned the actions occuring there. The damage done to the US efforts in Iraq and elsewhere for years to come cannot be allowed to happen again.

0 Replies

okie, anton is inviting you to walk a mile in someone else's shoes and you can't figure it out.

Imagine if someone decided to impose their beliefs and system of government on the U.S.

Would you sit still and let it happen?

Or would you fight back?

The difference between a patriot and a terrorist truly does depend on which side you're watching from.

0 Replies

Not all terrorists are worth their salt. And yes, many lies are told under duress, but I think experts will tell you that using interrogation techniques bordering on torture, and including torture, does in fact obtain some useful and factual information. I think this has been proven. I say again, I do not advocate torture, unless in the extreme examples wherein many lives, property, and environment are clearly at stake, which I do not think is that far fetched at all. My example is only one of countless scenarios that any president would need to contemplate as to what the responsible course of action would be.

0 Replies

An open letter to all those decent American's

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know