Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
The issue is not whether waterboarding is the worst thing ever, nor how the US compares to the Nazis. The issue is whether we're on the right path. The fact that keep ignoring that, and focusing on tit-for-tat nonsense, indicates that you recognize how pointless it is to defend our current policies.

---

Quote:

---

What ever made you think I was defending our current policies?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
What ever made you think I was defending our current policies? If you have a problem with anything the American government is doing, there are procedures already in place to correct them. Either vote the bastards out or indict them. Thats the path I'm defending. From the rhetoric I get here, many of you aren't happy with those options and want everyone to grab torches and pitchforks and join the mob storming the castle.

---

Quote:

---

I think the bastards are voted out, which is as it should be if the people aren't happy with their actions. In this imperfect world, that's a win. If we tarred and feathered the bastards and paraded them through the streets then we, the people, would be just as bad as the ones we were punishing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Do you really consider waterboarding a few folk, none of whom dies, as being superior in brazen evil to the killing fields of Cambodia, the gas chambers of the Nazis, the 60 million or so killed in various Soviet terror campaigns, Rwanda, Sudan, etc.?

---

And just so you don't think I'm picking on foreigners, How about the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Trail of Tears, Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus, Jim Crow, the Black Hills, Hawaii, internment of Japanese-Americans, Montgomery, the Bay of Pigs, etc.

What makes waterboarding so much worse than these things? Or is it just that you don't like the current administration as much as you did Lincoln or Roosevelt or Kennedy?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Alright. Fair enough. I see the distinction you're making. But I think you're misinterpreting most of us here if you think we want to storm the castle. Bitching and complaining is an important part of the 'process'. If we don't raise awareness and have the public debate, nothing gets changed.

---

Quote:

---

First of all, we've still got six months to deal with. They can do a lot of damage in that span, so I think we need to maintain diligent public scrutiny on their actions.

---

Quote:

---

Secondly, this isn't about the current administration as much as it's about the next one. We need to provide them a clear mandate if we are to expect any change at all. That goes for Obama as well as McCain.

---

Quote:

---

But you have to have the debate.

---

Quote:

---

It's a dead issue and should be dropped

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
"But you have to have the debate."

Except... you don't.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
But you have to have the debate. Calling someone a fool, stupid, ignorant or irrational when they don't agree with you isn't debate. Having a mind closed to any viewpoint but your own isn't debate. Hyperbole isn't debate.

---

Quote:

---

...rehashing waterboarding again and again doesn't really further that idea. You got the best resolution that's going to happen. It's a dead issue and should be dropped while you go on to new concerns.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
But you have to have the debate. Calling someone a fool, stupid, ignorant or irrational when they don't agree with you isn't debate. Having a mind closed to any viewpoint but your own isn't debate. Hyperbole isn't debate.

---

Again, I agree. But neither is accusing critics of 'America hating'. I hate torture, and the fact that our leaders have embraced it, and even now refuse to fully denounce it, makes them illegitimate in my eyes.

Quote:

---

...rehashing waterboarding again and again doesn't really further that idea. You got the best resolution that's going to happen. It's a dead issue and should be dropped while you go on to new concerns.

---

I disagree. I'm not willing to settle for the half-assed, equivocating responses that have dribbled out of the white house. And I want to make sure that whoever moves in next gets the picture loud and clear.

I'm not convinced that's yet happened. Given the way our elections are run, given the compromised integrity of corporate media, given the deeply entrenched nature of party/machine politics - I'm not convinced either candidate will produce any change beyond the Hallmark cards speeches we'll hear in the campaign.

The only way real change will happen is by holding their feet to the fire and making it abundantly clear that we've had enough. If that discomfits the fragile egos of so-called 'patriots', so much the better.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:


Since your responses above indicate that you consider debate to be personal insults, mis-stating other's points, and refusing to respond to questions, I can see how you'd believe that. I can provide a list of quotes if you'd like.

---

Quote:

---

The only way real change will happen is by holding their feet to the fire and making it abundantly clear that we've had enough.

---

Quote:

---

Since your responses above indicate that you consider debate to be personal insults, mis-stating other's points, and refusing to respond to questions, I can see how you'd believe that. I can provide a list of quotes if you'd like.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
I disagree. I'm not willing to settle for the half-assed, equivocating responses that have dribbled out of the white house. And I want to make sure that whoever moves in next gets the picture loud and clear.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Seems to me war crimes usually end in a trial not at a election....

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Just stop calling me an America-hater, 'kay?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Okay. Just remember that there are a lot of other people out there who want the White House to get their (different) message loud and clear, and that you may not end up getting exactly what you want. You should be ready for that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Yup. That's exactly why it's so important to speak your piece. What's your point exactly? Awhile ago you were saying we ought to sit down and shut up...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
SO, where are those quotes, Geezer?

---

Quote:

---

It's interesting to note that you don't often insult people directly, but instead do it in little asides.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by miike:
does this have to go on forever man its legalised torture B]

---

Quote:

---

I don't disagree, but does that disqualify it from being psychological torture? The 'torture' part of it is still the psychological part.

I'm not sure why there's such a strong reaction against waterboarding being seen as primarily psychological torture. Calling it psychological torture doesn't downgrade it or 'make it more acceptable' in any way, it's just, in my opinion, a more accurate description of the effects this form of torture has.

Many other forms of torture mentioned here are based around inducing physical pain, which may or may not leave marks on the body. Waterboarding is different, and this makes it seem ambiguous to many people and not clearly-defined 'torture'. Of course, it is torture, just not the type that's based on physical pain.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
... and still leave us at least a semblance of plausible deniability. I'd vastly prefer that we could at least maintain the illusion of taking the moral high road...

---

Quote:

---

I suspect that a lot of the people who believe the US has lost its moral standing in the world due to the few reported instances of waterboarding - and due to the fact that we don't immediately repudiate and ban any aggressinve interrogation methods - probably didn't have too good an opinion of America's moral standing in the first place. If we did say we're sorry and wouldn't ever do it again, they wouldn't believe it anyway. Even if we'd never done it, those folks would believe we did.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
That was Siggy and Chris wanting me to sit down and shut up.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Geezer, you said we "stuck a toe in, and didn't find it to our liking" and this will keep us from trying it again, at least for a while. I maintain that to really make that lesson stick, at least for a while, you need to put some of the perps on trial for their crimes. It's not like you can just give them a freebie and they'll know better next time. You punish them, severely, and then OTHERS will know better BEFORE there's a next time.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Oh, shut up Geezer- that's not true!!!

---

Quote:

---

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
That was Siggy and Chris wanting me to sit down and shut up.

Oh, shut up Geezer- that's not true!!!

---

Quote:

---

And remember, I served too, I took the Oath, and unlike these pissants, I took it fucking SERIOUSLY, even if I believe the document itself flawed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
The argument that was made was that the detainees aren't covered by the geneva convention.

---

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
I don't think it's been said often enough, or by enough of us, but for ALL of you who've served, or still are serving, a heartfelt "THANK YOU" for your service to your country.

---

Quote:

---

The argument that was made was that the detainees aren't covered by the geneva convention.

---

Quote:

---

You really have to do some bizarre mental contortions to come up with any other answer.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Third Convention, Article Four is pretty explict that they are - I cite the Celebici Judgment as proof that there is no intermediate status.

If they are simple criminals, we hand em over to local law enforcement, but if WE detain them, they are prisoners of war, the very act of military detention clearly acknowledges them as such.

It's pretty cut and dried, and the fact that we are using military tribunals just adds weight to the case, since we HAVE no civil jurisdiction save extradition, in someone elses country.

You really have to do some bizarre mental contortions to come up with any other answer.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Where'd you serve, Geezer?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

There are things that go bump in the night. And we are the ones who bump back.

---