Indefinite detentions under Obama???

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Interesting note on the torture angle. I'm reading a book called Legacy of Ashes which is a history of the CIA. In the 1950s, the Agency gave prisoners at a penitentiary in Kentucky (regular prisoners mind you, not Russians or Cubans or captured commies) LSD for 77 straight days. Apparently they were just seeing what would happen. Now, for anyone who hasn't taken acid, trust me. After about the third day on government LSD in a prison setting, which was probably a very strongish dose, waterboarding would seem fairly tame. The point is that, this country has a long history of pushing the envelope in all sorts of areas. To pretend that Bush did something new or extraordinary is laughable.

70, i totally agree with this post. i know, it must be a first

[saden1]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Interesting note on the torture angle. I'm reading a book called Legacy of Ashes which is a history of the CIA. In the 1950s, the Agency gave prisoners at a penitentiary in Kentucky (regular prisoners mind you, not Russians or Cubans or captured commies) LSD for 77 straight days. Apparently they were just seeing what would happen. Now, for anyone who hasn't taken acid, trust me. After about the third day on government LSD in a prison setting, which was probably a very strongish dose, waterboarding would seem fairly tame. The point is that, this country has a long history of pushing the envelope in all sorts of areas. To pretend that Bush did something new or extraordinary is laughable.

LOL...good one. We've done it before, and we can do it again because we've done it before. To infinity and beyond!

[BleedBurgundy]

Something else to think about is the word "Terrorist." What defines someone as a terrorist as opposed to a revolutionary/activist/conventional enemy? It's been said many times previously, but in the second half of the 18th century, terrorists went by the names of Washington, Jefferson and Adams, just to name a few. Terrorist, or in the Bushian vernacular "torrist," is just the latest broad brush that we use to paint anyone with views in opposition to our own. Many of the inmates in Gitmo are enemy combatants. Thus they were "terrorists." Yet, in the 1930s and '40s we somehow resisted the urge to keep indefinitely all Axis POW's that we captured. I really fail to see what the difference is aside from the obvious cultural distinctions. Again, these are all conversations in the abstract because right and wrong don't truly exist in a situation like this. We can use vocabulary to justify whatever we want and spin it a thousand times. The problem is that there are a large percentage of Americans who believe their own bullshit.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

You're looking at this as if it's a country vs. country conflict. In which case you would be 100% correct. This is not the same situation. We're not dealing with soldiers from another country. We're dealing with animals who murder innocents purposely, behead innocents on video, and kill civilians to make it look like we did it. The sole purpose of these morons is to impose their ideology on the world through terror. If waterboarding 3 of the high-level operatives to save innocent lives (American or otherwise) needs to be done, then let's save lives. Last I checked American civilians weren't running around in foreign countries trying to kill Iraqis, or Afghans, or any other country's civilian population.

Keep in mind the "torture" (I'm assuming waterboarding) you're referring to was no worse than what our own special operations forces undergo during training. Although we try to hold ourselves to a higher standard, we know that other countries or terrorist organizations won't hesitate to torture our folks if they're captured.

"animals" rarely do the kind of deeds you describe. That level of cruelty is solely the domain of humans. I'm not a peta clown, just saying... We do these things because we misapply the limited reasoning skills we have and carry out actions in the name of country, religion and ideology that we would never do otherwise.

Also, because i'm in the mood to play devil's advocate, what makes one form of killing superior to another? "Terrorists" strap on explosives and blow themselves up in a market killing hundreds of civilians. The "Good Guys" use cluster bombs and other conventional weapons that eliminate people on a much larger scale, killing countless civilians regardless of our best intentions. I really don't get the whole "these people are monsters" arguments unless we as Americans just need to feel morally superior to those we destroy. In my opinion, that's simply a weakness of intellect.

[Daseal]

Who have we tortured ? Waterboarding is NOT torture . Waterboarding causes ,,,, ZERO injuries ,,, no muscle or ligament damage , no respitory illness , no lung desease , no eye , ear or throat damage . We are not waterboaring service men / women ,,, these people are terrorists targeting civilians . Show me how what we are doing today is equal to what the Germans/ Japanese or VC did to our SOLDIERS ? I understand your point , but comparing WB'ing with Breaking Bones and starving people to death is like apples and oranges , IMO . And they are not criminals they are terrorists .

If you don't feel like the sensation of drowning is torture, then I feel you're severely mistaken. Just because there's no 'physical' pain doesn't mean that the pain is still great. I couldn't think of anything worse than sleep deprivation myself. The fact is, most of the people in gitmo probably aren't all that bad. If they were so radical and terrible, wouldn't we be able to have evidence to charge them? I feel like everyone deserves their day in court.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

"animals" rarely do the kind of deeds you describe. That level of cruelty is solely the domain of humans. I'm not a peta clown, just saying... We do these things because we misapply the limited reasoning skills we have and carry out actions in the name of country, religion and ideology that we would never do otherwise.

Also, because i'm in the mood to play devil's advocate, what makes one form of killing superior to another? "Terrorists" strap on explosives and blow themselves up in a market killing hundreds of civilians. The "Good Guys" use cluster bombs and other conventional weapons that eliminate people on a much larger scale, killing countless civilians regardless of our best intentions. I really don't get the whole "these people are monsters" arguments unless we as Americans just need to feel morally superior to those we destroy. In my opinion, that's simply a weakness of intellect.

Your kidding right? There is a hudge difference. Yes in war civilians are going to died but they are not the target when we strike at a target. The bad guys your talking about target civilians.

[Daseal]

Firstdown, don't act ignorant. Every country targets civilians first. It has to do with destroying infrastructure. Often children are involved. Israel has been said to purposely bomb schools, during school hours. Same with hospitals.

Unfortunately, when you invade, civilians will feel the brunt of the attack. We've been very lucky as Americans to not see wars on our own soil (besides the ones we conduct on ourselves, and Pearl Harbor.) I couldn't imagine the constant state of fear many countries, especially in the instable middle east go through every day. 9/11 was terrible, but it pales in comparison to what most countries see regularly.

Yes, we're not striking the target 'to kill civilians', but we are targeting important structures that we know will lead to civilian death. It's an unfortunate side effect of war.

[firstdown]

I don't get why people are so worked up over waderboarding people whos misson in life is to kill us. We did it to three people and it lead to us saving lives. Obama released the meathods we used but for political reasons decided not to release the results we had from waterboarding. I personaly think that because if Americans knew how well it work their opinion might change.

[Daseal]

FD - Didn't a CIA operative just say that waterboarding gave us absolutely no useful information behind a screen to Congress? Honestly, I'm not really against torture. But I also realize it is an action that can also be taken against our soldiers. I guess my biggest issue is that we have no evidence on the guys we're doing this to, instead we THINK they're connected. Would you be fine being abducted and tortured because they THOUGHT you may be an Anti-American terrorist? No, you'd be screaming for a lawyer and proof.

All I'm asking is torture people you know have information.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Your kidding right? There is a hudge difference. Yes in war civilians are going to died but they are not the target when we strike at a target. The bad guys your talking about target civilians.

I'm absolutely not kidding. Civilians are just as dead in either scenario, whether they had been specifically targeted or not.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Daseal

FD - Didn't a CIA operative just say that waterboarding gave us absolutely no useful information behind a screen to Congress? Honestly, I'm not really against torture. But I also realize it is an action that can also be taken against our soldiers. I guess my biggest issue is that we have no evidence on the guys we're doing this to, instead we THINK they're connected. Would you be fine being abducted and tortured because they THOUGHT you may be an Anti-American terrorist? No, you'd be screaming for a lawyer and proof.

All I'm asking is torture people you know have information.

No I have heard just the opposite and people are calling for the white house to release those memos. Waderboarding was only used on two or three people and one of the guys was one of the master minds behind 9/11.

[budw38]

Originally Posted by Daseal

If you don't feel like the sensation of drowning is torture, then I feel you're severely mistaken. Just because there's no 'physical' pain doesn't mean that the pain is still great. I couldn't think of anything worse than sleep deprivation myself. The fact is, most of the people in gitmo probably aren't all that bad. If they were so radical and terrible, wouldn't we be able to have evidence to charge them? I feel like everyone deserves their day in court.

Hey Deasal , how are you . I agree with you that we should not treat EVERY guy we pick up on a battllefield the same , Im sure more than a few just joined the fight . As far as sleep deprivation , loud music ect. I would imagine that many are not subjected to that for long if they will not talk . As for waterboarding , it is used < as I was told > , only on " high level " targets , whom we believe have info on terror attacks or planning of attacks , ect . I do not want us to just beat the hell out of any fighter after he is detained , but if we capture a top Al Queda member , i just hope we do what ever we have to to save lives . As long as the trial is military < no evidence is released to the public or lawyers > , then Im fine .

[Trample the Elderly]

All is fair in Love and War.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

All is fair in Love and War.

Including suicide bombings?

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by saden1

Including suicide bombings?

That's right. They're playing hardball and you guys are worried about their stinking rights?

Americans are just as capable of playing hardball. Flying on a fire-bombing mission into a wall of anti-aircraft fire, over a fully industrialized nation, is nothing short of suicide.