http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IsKkfjm73A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIxAEOjpeTU

When the North Vietnamese waterboard a captured navy pilot, we scream about the torture. And yet, a captured AQ terrorist "suspect" (they have not taken them to trial and proven guilt) who is receiving the waterboard treatment is not being tortured, because the US policy is to not use torture.

Fucking hypocritical, cowardly, military service avoiding disgraces we have leading this country. We deserve to be falling off our pedestal.

Either have the balls to say we will do whatever we need to to protect our citizens and screw international condemnation, or abide by the treaties we are signator to, and maintain the honor this country once proudly displayed.


Everyone of us reading these boards knows damn well that Bush, Cheney, and every other elected politician would call what we are doing torture if it was being applied to them.

Thoughts on torture from the WW2 era (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100502492.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR). Back then, they and their commanders wrestled with the morality of bugging prisoners' cells with listening devices. They felt bad about censoring letters. They took prisoners out for steak dinners to soften them up. They played games with them.

"We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture," said Henry Kolm, 90, an MIT physicist who had been assigned to play chess in Germany with Hitler's deputy, Rudolf Hess.
...
Several of the veterans, all men in their 80s and 90s, denounced the controversial techniques. And when the time came for them to accept honors from the Army's Freedom Team Salute, one veteran refused, citing his opposition to the war in Iraq and procedures that have been used at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.Perhaps they just don't understand the stakes involved.

Perhaps they just don't understand the stakes involved.

LOL...you know they do. It seems that it is Bush/Cheney who have never understood the stakes involved.

There was recently a show on The Military Channel about a group of men who had fled Nazi Germany and were used as interrogators for the Army in Europe...I forget the name of the show but it was excellent.

...citing his opposition to the war in Iraq and procedures that have been used at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.Perhaps all those Korans being flushed at Gitmo are influencing his attitude.

WW2 as an example of how to treat POWs? Puhleease. Go back to living in your utopian fantasy.

That disabrred lawyer wanting to lecture at some college about ethics? LMAO. Execution chair after a quick trial would have been the only news she made back in 40s.

I know people like to believe there were no such things as ethical qualms before 1975, but there have been real and vociferous debates on those subjects for a long time. Western nations have had mutual codes of conduct in war for centuries, that while not held to as rigorously as one might hope, still meant something, and people were in fact tried and convicted of what we now call war crimes as far back as the 1500s, usually by means of making the offending nation pay reparations. There were arguments in America over the treatment of prisoners as long as there has been a United States, otherwise George Washington wouldn't have had to put out a standing order about it in 1776. (it's a good little 10 line read)

Go back to living in your utopian fantasy.As opposed to your own lala land where principles are a handicap, the Constitution is a hurdle, and using the tactics of our enemies is a perfectly moral act because we're the US and can do no wrong?

Yeah, I'll take my fantasy over yours, thanks.

I read somewhere that water boarding works wonders for people with sinus trouble...but those interviewed had REALLY bad sinus'.

In times like these I just say WWJD (what would Jack (bauer) do).

Times change people change, we can either adapt accept new methods or keep playing ping pong chess with Bin Laden and wonder why we arent getting anywhere. It worked in the 40's lmao the world was a much different place then.

Most of these peoples arent getting waterboarded cause of someone "stole there identity" They have done some horrefic shit and waterboarding even if good for sinus problems shoudl be just a teaser for what they really deserve.

Guess we are just too damn soft, but were all guilty until we have representation from a lawyer. Or is it not guilty until you can get your arse out of jail and afford a lawyer.

As opposed to your own lala land where principles are a handicap, the Constitution is a hurdle, and using the tactics of our enemies is a perfectly moral act because we're the US and can do no wrong?

Yeah, I'll take my fantasy over yours, thanks. Yes yes, you got me. My post was all about burning that damned piece of paper.

Really, pander your strawman argument on someone else please.

Well, I guess we could always go back to phonebooks and baseball bats, if waterboarding is considered "too extreme"...
Has anyone thought about suing Al-Qaeda for violating our constitutional rights?
I've seen a few stories involving wrongful death suits against Al-Qaeda.
I think we can still do that, and not bring down the ire of the international community, or am I wrong?
Would that be cruel and unusual punishment?
Although, maybe the lawyers would have an easier time of finding Bin Laden, than our Armed Forces have....

Yes yes, you got me. My post was all about burning that damned piece of paper.

Really, pander your strawman argument on someone else please.Heh, your post wasn't really about anything. Flushing Korans? WW2 "POWs?" Some lawyer? And I'm the one jousting with the strawman?

Puhleease, indeed.

The only mistreatment of Gitmo terrorists I've seen is that we supposedly flushed their Korans down a toilet. And that turned out to be a lie.

Other than that, I'm not sure what "practices" your WW2vets were talking about.

Yes, strawman indeed.

The problem I have is more the hypocrisy than the actual interrogation techniques. We as a nation have signed off on treaties to abide by specific conduct, and our leaders are playing games with that.

And, how much time has been wasted chasing false leads, being that a prisoner under torture is more likely to tell you whatever you want to hear (and expound on it to great lengths if it might mean a lapse in the discomfort), and also having the intelligence already that AQ and related terrorist groups rarely allow more than a few key people to know what is going on rearding an operation. The use of independent cells has been widely written about, yet people still want to believe that we are going to bring down the organization with our methods.

Ya want to beat the terrorists, get Col. Kurtz to run the show. You have to out-terrorize the terrorists. Don't use these interrogation methods on the prisoners, but on their family members; and then, make sure the prisoner sees the video, if unable to personally watch the acts. Watching parents, wives and children being slapped in the head, and water-boarded, might loosen up the tongues much faster.

The problem is, while Bush and Cheney to go ahead and tell the world "Screw you, we are going to do this and anything else to protect our people", they have weakened us so badly in both international stature and military strength, that it would not be that big of an argument for our competitors in the world power arena to get the other nations to send a coalition against us, to arrest and prosecute our leaders for their crimes against humanity.

The world is indeed a different place from the 40's. Our leaders back then understood how to make us a strong nation; these incompetents we have now make us weaker every time they open their mouths or sign a secret order or memo.

Can you tell this topic gets me pissed?

The problem I have is more the hypocrisy than the actual interrogation techniques. We as a nation have signed off on treaties to abide by specific conduct, and our leaders are playing games with that.

And, how much time has been wasted chasing false leads, being that a prisoner under torture is more likely to tell you whatever you want to hear (and expound on it to great lengths if it might mean a lapse in the discomfort), and also having the intelligence already that AQ and related terrorist groups rarely allow more than a few key people to know what is going on rearding an operation. The use of independent cells has been widely written about, yet people still want to believe that we are going to bring down the organization with our methods.

Ya want to beat the terrorists, get Col. Kurtz to run the show. You have to out-terrorize the terrorists. Don't use these interrogation methods on the prisoners, but on their family members; and then, make sure the prisoner sees the video, if unable to personally watch the acts. Watching parents, wives and children being slapped in the head, and water-boarded, might loosen up the tongues much faster.

The problem is, while Bush and Cheney to go ahead and tell the world "Screw you, we are going to do this and anything else to protect our people", they have weakened us so badly in both international stature and military strength, that it would not be that big of an argument for our competitors in the world power arena to get the other nations to send a coalition against us, to arrest and prosecute our leaders for their crimes against humanity.

The world is indeed a different place from the 40's. Our leaders back then understood how to make us a strong nation; these incompetents we have now make us weaker every time they open their mouths or sign a secret order or memo.

Can you tell this topic gets me pissed?

Are you serious?

So hurt innocent people to get your way... Sounds alot like Terrorism.

Great way to CREATE MORE terrorists

Ya want to beat the terrorists, get Col. Kurtz to run the show. You have to out-terrorize the terrorists. Don't use these interrogation methods on the prisoners, but on their family members; and then, make sure the prisoner sees the video, if unable to personally watch the acts. Watching parents, wives and children being slapped in the head, and water-boarded, might loosen up the tongues much faster. Dude? At least when Jack Bauer did that, it was faked.

Whats good for the gander is good for the goose? It may very well come down to we are all terrorists.

Whats good for the gander is good for the goose? It may very well come down to we are all terrorists.

and then... WW3 begins! =(

I am not sure whether to laugh or cry that some are so blinded by their own viewpoints they would consider for a moment that my Col. Kurtz comment was anything more than a tongue in cheek bit of extreme thinking. It is the logical next step in the whole torture theory; to protect the innocent some innocents must be sacrificed.

I am almost shocked that the Bush bandwagoneers have not advocated this sooner, along with several pages of justifying rationalizations.

Truth is, I firmly believe the only thing that has kept Bush-Cheney from using more extreme measures is the knowledge that we are no longer strong enough to stand up against the world, thanks in large part to them and their measures.


And Jedd, Col Kurtz was a fictional character in the movie "Apocolypse Now", who truly understood the war being waged in Viet Nam better than any of the policy wonks in Washington.

It may very well come down to we are all terrorists.

I'm so afraid now, I think I'll spread some fear.....?
Is a person a terrorist, for allowing others to do the work they are too scared to do themselves?
I would think a terrorist is primarily motivated by hate. This usually makes them the purveyor of said terrorist act.
What is needed, rather than strong arm tactics, is subtlty.
All this flash and bang of the Iraq war, served its purpose. It made it more cost-effective for the terrorists to attack our armed forces, rather than the general civilian population.
What was then needed was some behind the scenes assassinations of Al-qaeda leaders from some of our special operations groups.
Remember, if you can get a camera near a person, you can get a gun there, just as easily.
You'd think GWB woulda learned the art of subtlety from his old man.
I feel like I'm watching a mongoliod version of David Copperfield.
One who forgot about the sleight of hand needed to really pull off the magic trick...

Sixee, You know I love cowbells AND will ferrell, but I'm going to have to say that if we knew/know where an Al Quaeda leader is, I'm pretty sure we are trying to kill him/it.

Yes, strawman indeed.You're thoroughly missing the point. I cited a group of WW2 interrogators who "lamented the chasm between the way they conducted interrogations during the war and the harsh measures used today in questioning terrorism suspects." They find torture as foul and useless as our enemies who rely on it. You cherry-picked a single word from the article and ran with it, ignoring rendition, secret prisons abroad, the Bybee memo and more recently revealed secret legal opinions, Abu Ghraib, deaths by torture in Iraq and Afghanistan, and so on.

Flail away in distraction all you like; it won't remove the stain that this practice marks upon our nation's history, credibility and moral authority.

You're thoroughly missing the point. I cited a group of WW2 interrogators who "lamented the chasm between the way they conducted interrogations during the war and the harsh measures used today in questioning terrorism suspects." They find torture as foul and useless as our enemies who rely on it. You cherry-picked a single word from the article and ran with it, ignoring rendition, secret prisons abroad, the Bybee memo and more recently revealed secret legal opinions, Abu Ghraib, deaths by torture in Iraq and Afghanistan, and so on.
Flail away in distraction all you like; it won't remove the stain that this practice marks upon our nation's history, credibility and moral authority.
...one veteran refused, citing his opposition to the war in Iraq and procedures that have been used at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Yeah, forgive me for being stuck on a single word and all... "it's fake but accurate!"

Anyway, as I said before, he must've been influenced by all the Koran flushing at Gitmo to have that opinion. In reality, what goes on at Gitmo would be very familiar to what that vet did in Germany.

This continuous praise I hear from people to all that we used to be is dillusional and not based in reality. Japanese internment camps, Dresden, .... millions and millions of people dead the world over, so what's a few more if a squad of Aussie's say they'll gladly guard the gook POWs overnight. "What prisoners?" is the answer the next morning. That one keeps my grandfather up at nights even though he had to listen to the sons of bitches disembowel and mutilate 2 of his buddies the night before from across the line.

Hell, watch the history channel. I saw more of the same just last week on PBS.

You're ashamed of rendition? Secret prisons? Me too, but it would be a lot more civilized if the bastards just put on a uniform and swore an oath to a flag. Your German general at least had a foundational understanding and mutual appreciate for civilized discourse. I suspect Mohammed Atta wouldn't care much for a steak.

But those things are a piss in a bucket compared to what went down in the last half of the 20th century. You people think George Bush invented rendition? secret prisons? Uh yeah right.

I could rant on another 3 pages and be like Jedd all piss and vineger about everything America has done.

But I submit again to this board that today's military forces (and that includes those of our indespensible allies) are the best trained, most disciplined, and most generous and giving military soldiers ever to fight on a battlefield. Unmatchable in their deeds and actions and thankfully they're winning just for that right now in Iraq. All while you guys burrow your head in shame and gnash your teeth at all the injustices the US has committed.

And domestically, anyone want to commit treason against America? My God we've got the most liberal sense of treason and high crimes ever in the history of this country. You think Lincoln or FDR would've tolerated some asshat lawyer spewing treasonous garbage in one their colleges? Haha you funny people.

And how about the former National Security Advisor stealing classified documents to cover up whatever it was he wanted to hide from the 9/11 Commission? You think McClellan or Truman or Eisenhower would be getting advice from him in the next election? Are you people kidding me?

You fail to see the problem with INSTITUTIONALIZING of these policies.

Look, shit happens. But you cannot set the morality bar so low. Whatever the top sets it as, expect it go much much lower where the rubber hits the road.

And great stories Akipt.. but this aint WW2. This is a clusterfuck of legendary caliber. There is no "War on Terror". You cant wage a military action against undefined people in unspecific countries who you think may want to hurt something somewhere related to the US for an open ended period of time (well.. our leaders say 30 years). SO what we do have is not a temporary circumstance, IE the need to defeat the Nazis, but an attempt to permanently alter and undermine basic principles of Democratic Ideology, for the sole purpose of increasing Executive power and weakening Legislative.

Here is the danger Akipt..

Our nation was founded, at its core, and this is the most important principle we have, with the solemn belief that Government does not grant certain rights, all humans are born with them, it is the job of the government to protect these rights for us.

The problem becomes when this instrument of protection which we have created deliberatly, systematically and institutionally starts intentionally depriving people of the basic rights which it is supposed to hold as sacred, and violated only in the most extreme of times.

The message the government sends is that these people dont have these rights because they arent American... they do not have these rights because the GOVERNMENT has not granted them to them. The attitude then changes and sacred becomes the profane. We become just another nation whose people enjoy freedoms only granted by the largess of the government, to be taken away for whatever justification they deem appropriate.
In a sense... Democracy dies.

Yes... it is that important.

Yeah, forgive me for being stuck on a single word and all... "it's fake but accurate!"Your missing the point is very real, but -- as Stephen Colbert might say -- I accept your apology.

L2 has it quite right: the administration's interest in making all I described SOP is a real problem. I'm pleased you oppose such measures. You're ashamed of rendition? Secret prisons? Me too, but it would be a lot more civilized if the bastards just put on a uniform and swore an oath to a flag.Yes, it would be great, but they don't wear uniforms, and their oaths are to twisted ideals and tactics actual civilized people and nations should eschew.
Unmatchable in their deeds and actions and thankfully they're winning just for that right now in Iraq.Unfortunately, their willingness to do the job and do it well isn't winning the peace. Political reconciliation in Iraq isn't happening, per the Iraqis themselves. All while you guys burrow your head in shame and gnash your teeth at all the injustices the US has committed.Nice caricature! Actually, us guys (whoever we are) are railing against those who sanction the un-American. Things like rendition and secret prisons. Some of us are ashamed of those things.Me tooMake that some of us +1.
You think Lincoln or FDR would've tolerated some asshat lawyer spewing treasonous garbage in one their colleges?I don't know, why not find something to back up such an allegation. You think Jefferson or Madison would've tolerated a pro-torture/anti-habeas corpus interpretation of their writings from some asshat lawyer?

I think Akipt is mis-interpreting the WWII issues and very inaccurately trying to correlate them with the so called war on terror.

My father spent his time in the Pacific and there was a true hatred for the Japanese by the American fighting man. The Japanese were known to feign surrender and they would then commit suicide, usually by grenade and take a few Americans with them. After that became what most soldiers expected, it became easier to just shoot the Japanese who were supposedly surrendering, but this was the reaction of the soldier on the ground and right or wrong it wasthe consequence brought on by the Japanese themselves.

In 99% of the cases where we actually were able to take a Japanese soldier prisoner they were treated within the guidelines of the Geneva Convention.

But we must remember that none of us were there and we have no right to judge the actions of those who were, it is purely impossible to pass judgement.

As far as the war in europe in WWII there was a mutual respect between the German soldier and the Allied soldier, however there was not much respect by the allies for the SS soldier. I do know that the SS were known to sit as snipers and shoot a few Americans and then surrender because they knew they would be treated well as prisoners, however after a short period of time the Americans got sick of the game and would simply shoot the surrendering sniper. Again, judgement is something none of us can honestly do.

But these situations hold NO similiarity to the situation that is upon us today as those being tortured are mostly just suspects who were reported by others who were being tortured or others who might have a chip on their shoulders concerning the person they reported.

There is just no comparison between WWII and Today.

One of the earliest mistakes we made in Iraq was keeping Abu Gharib open for business and simply trading US torturers in place of the ones Saddam had there.

We should have bulldozed that place and made it loud and clear that we would not operate like Saddam did but instead we became just as scary and just as shitty as the regime we deposed there and torture became our policy.

Remember this Akipt:

There is no difference between a detainee and a prisoner they are one and the same, the name is just different.

Enhanced Interrogation is torture, plain and simple.

Bush has done more to hurt our country than Bin Laden has or the regime in Iran.

Todays troops are no better trained, no more disciplined, no more generous and no more giving than units that fought in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Beirut, Desert Storm. Todays troops simply uphold the traditions and standards set by those who went before them.

Todays troops are no better trained...... than units that fought in WWII, Korea, Vietnam.....

Yep, those conscripted troops were just as good as today's professional soldiers.

You might want to reword that statement, just a hair.

Yep, those conscripted troops were just as good as today's professional soldiers.

You might want to reword that statement, just a hair.

Having served in Viet Nam with both enliested and draftees, I saw no real difference in how they conducted themselves and performed their duties.
And, I would hesitate to denigrate a draftee as being unprofessional, simply because he was serving at the government's behest rather than his own preference.

Today's volunteers are not all there for altruistic or patriotic ends, so making a case that they are "better" in some way does not hold for me.

Yep, those conscripted troops were just as good as today's professional soldiers.

You might want to reword that statement, just a hair.

I'm not sure if you have any hold on reality here but the majority of troops in the past were volunteers vs conscripts. You should also check to see how many draftees received bronze stars, silver stars, navy crosses, distinguished service crosses, medal of honor awards.

Get a grip man...the draftees fought with professionalism, honor and love of country.

Well, during the Gulf War, I saw a big difference in how people called in from the IRR (Inactive Ready Reserves) and the "Selfish, Unpatriotic" volunteers that were the professional soldiers of the time.
Many were overweight, underdisciplined, and poorly trained individuals that I had a hard time respecting, and they had a hard time keeping up with us. They also had a hard time performing their duties.

The case in which today's soldiers are "better" comes to the part I pulled from your statement, training.
Today's soldiers are required to do a certain amount of push-ups, sit ups, and run 2 miles in a certain time.

https://atiam.train.army.mil/soldierPortal/atia/adlsc/view/public/8046-1/stp/21-1-smct/stp21_1.pdf

The link shows the common tasks today's soldiers must be profecient in.
If you don't have the time to download 15 meg PDF, I'll summarize it for you.
There are only four chapters, but the third chapter covers 20 subjects ranging from individual conduct and laws of war, to maintaining a M240B machine gun, to defense measures.

Say what you want about the motivation of today's soldiers, they recieve the best training possible, and are expected to continue to be profecient in these areas, just to maintain the ability to stay in.
If you want to rise above the rank of lower enlisted, you have to be even more profecient in other tasks. Just look below for an eye-opener.

https://atiam.train.army.mil/soldierPortal/atia/adlsc/view/public/8047-1/stp/21-24-smct/stp21_24.pdf

I'm pretty sure the standards of Viet Nam's conscripts wouldn't compare to today's soldiers. Regardless, I'm sure that your observations as to the professionalism of the soldiers vs draftees, might be tainted.
Professional soldiers, and conscripts both react the same way under fire. Fear is a great equalizer; Soldiers and draftees alike know to duck and cover, and return fire when being shot at.

Well, during the Gulf War, I saw a big difference in how people called in from the IRR (Inactive Ready Reserves) and the "Selfish, Unpatriotic" volunteers that were the professional soldiers of the time.
Many were overweight, underdisciplined, and poorly trained individuals that I had a hard time respecting, and they had a hard time keeping up with us. They also had a hard time performing their duties.

The case in which today's soldiers are "better" comes to the part I pulled from your statement, training.
Today's soldiers are required to do a certain amount of push-ups, sit ups, and run 2 miles in a certain time.

https://atiam.train.army.mil/soldierPortal/atia/adlsc/view/public/8046-1/stp/21-1-smct/stp21_1.pdf

The link shows the common tasks today's soldiers must be profecient in.
If you don't have the time to download 15 meg PDF, I'll summarize it for you.
There are only four chapters, but the third chapter covers 20 subjects ranging from individual conduct and laws of war, to maintaining a M240B machine gun, to defense measures.

Say what you want about the motivation of today's soldiers, they recieve the best training possible, and are expected to continue to be profecient in these areas, just to maintain the ability to stay in.
If you want to rise above the rank of lower enlisted, you have to be even more profecient in other tasks. Just look below for an eye-opener.

https://atiam.train.army.mil/soldierPortal/atia/adlsc/view/public/8047-1/stp/21-24-smct/stp21_24.pdf

I'm pretty sure the standards of Viet Nam's conscripts wouldn't compare to today's soldiers. Regardless, I'm sure that your observations as to the professionalism of the soldiers vs draftees, might be tainted.
Professional soldiers, and conscripts both react the same way under fire. Fear is a great equalizer; Soldiers and draftees alike know to duck and cover, and return fire when being shot at.


I have taken the liberty to bold your most ridiculiously un-thought out statements.

Just read them over and over again and I think eventually you will see your reasoning is not only retarded but alsowithout much thought.

Today's soldiers are required to do a certain amount of push-ups, sit ups, and run 2 miles in a certain time.

It's a funny thing, but I distinctly remember being required to very similiar things. In my case it was the standard PFT, given every year, which was run 3 miles, push-ups, sit-ups and pull-ups just to stay in the Marine Corps and then there was MOS specific physical requirements.

I think Bylimet will also be able to point out that there were physical requirements in the Army back in the un-professional days of the cavemen soldiers.

It's a funny thing, but I distinctly remember being required to very similiar things. In my case it was the standard PFT, given every year, which was run 3 miles, push-ups, sit-ups and pull-ups just to stay in the Marine Corps and then there was MOS specific physical requirements.

Even in the Air Force, which by its mission definition has no infantry troops, has always had PFTs; back in the early 1980s the requirements were 1.5 miles in under 12 mins (Navy had to do 2 mi and the Marine Corps 3 mi, so we were slackers ;) ) as well as a certain number of pushups/situps in 1 min/pullups (or 30 sec flexed arm hang for females). I never had any problem with these but there were guys/gals who struggled with them, as well as weight regs. Again, certain positions had more stringent requirements, but those were the *base* PFT standards, and most of us were destined to be table or tarmac jockeys.

To assert that our volunteer soldiers are much better-conditioned and trained than they were in previous conflicts is just silly; and this most recent conflict has relied more on Reservists than any war in our recent history. At least when people were drafted, they had to go through Basic Training and their MOS school *immediately* before they were deployed, in contrast to these active and inactive reservists and National Guard folks who are serving in the tens of thousands in Iraq today who had been doing their 'one weekend a month and two weeks a year', or less, when they were called up. As Rover mentioned, most draftees served with professionalism, pride, and honor, and especially during WW2 individuals often underwent heroic efforts to avoid the shame of washing out of Basic due to health conditions that they had, or volunteered despite these, or lied about their age, etc. I worked for a tiny older man in a knife shop when I first left the Air Force, who had enlisted in the Navy during WW2; he had both lied about his age in order to do so, and, being unable to meet minimum weight requirements, had, on the day of his second weighin, bought a huge bunch of bananas and eaten them, one by one, on the bus on the way to the recruiters so that he could make the magical 110 lbs. He was accepted and fought with honor in the Normandy invasion.

But... what does all this have to do with the topic of this thread, which was this Administration's insistence, even when it had to hide such sanction from other branches of government because of its illegality, as well as its insanity, on the use of torture and denial of habeas rights to 'captured enemy combatants' (by whatever means, including 'extrordinary rendition')?

Regards,
Nydia

Sorry that I derailed this topic. I still tend to believe our soldiers are the best trained, and conditioned forces to date.
The two schools of thought at odds here are that all men are created equal, and that all Americans are created equal.
If all men are created equal, then how does the government of the United States have the right to enforce this, without disturbing the sovereignty of other nations? Espically when we see the rights that we hold so dearly being trampled by the governmens of other nations? Wouldn't this set us up for more situations like what happened in Iran back in 79?
The second school of thought makes the answers easier. If you aren't an American, then the Constitution cannot be applied. It makes things like torture and denial of habeas rights easier to palate.
So, do we afford the same rights to our enemies, as we do our own citizens?
Since the power of the government ultimately lies in the hands of the people, can it be a dynamically changed? Or is a law, a law; forever and unchanging?

One last comment on the derail, for Sixee. Am I under a mistaken belief that the Reservists and Guard are not voluntarily serving? As there has been no draft since the 70's, I would think everyone currently in military service must be a volunteer, or a professional soldier, as you say.

As to the torture issue, I stated once already the easy litmus test for what constitutes torture: if applied to our own leaders and politicians, would they still claim the techniques to be simply enhanced interrogation, or torture?

Almost everything I can say at this point has been said already, as we have debated the Bush-Cheney move toward a police state. The comparisons have been made to Eastern Europe's events in the 30's leading up to Germany's aggression: spying on one's citizens, attempts to censor and/or dictate to the media, putting in place mechanisms whereby the government can seize assets and property, imprisoning people without having to prove they have done anything, and keeping them incommunicado, defining a specific enemy who has no face but is represented as "the great evil" (Jews in the 30's blended in much the same as today's terrorists), and so on.

I will not go so far as to make a comparison of Bush being anything at all like Hitler, but the basic steps taken by almost every dictator in the last 100 years are the same basic steps Bush-Cheney have been taking, including the use of torture. The reason for keeping as much of the rendition and torture programs secret is evident in the reaction by the American people to their disclosure; outrage, disgust, sadness, and a profound embarassment of the nation's leadership.

Our nation was attacked by terrorists, and it will be again. The only thing that should surprise anyone is that it took so long before this happened, given the amount of terrorist attacks in other countries over the past 30-40 years. We are now a part of a global war against these people, and unless the global community is willing to take the gloves off and allow any and all "techniques" to win the war, it is way too arrogant for our leaders to think they have the right to do as they please.

Thanks to the Bush-Cheney administration, the US has abdicated it's role as a leader on the world stage, and instead we are reacting to global events from a more and more isolated postion. By trying to maintain a sense of secrecy around the administration's approval of the disclosed "enhanced interrogation" techniques, we have only suceeded in further alienating ourselves. I am not sure that our "compassionate conservative" in the White House would ever have gone this far away from the global community were it not for that power hungry Veep of his, who has demonstrated his disdain for anyone other than the rich and powerful like himself.

Maybe we can get Cheney on the Waterboard and ask him some questions about the secret meetings with Energy heads, about the contracts he had with Iran while CEO of Halliburton, about the deals that were made to advance the legislation during the Ford years that created the access for Halliburtons and Blackwaters and so on. After all, it wouldn't be torture.

Or is a law, a law; forever and unchanging?

When you present yourselves as a nation of laws a law is a law and is applied without prejudice!

One last comment on the derail, for Sixee. Am I under a mistaken belief that the Reservists and Guard are not voluntarily serving?
This is true, however the general attitude back in the 90's was Reservists and Guard members were "Part-time" soldiers.
While their service was voluntary, the likelihood of actually seeing combat, even back then, was pretty rare.

The folks in the IRR likely thought of themselves as former soldiers, forgetting about the "ready" part.

The first Gulf War was the first time that the "Total Force" doctrine (established in 1970) was put into practice. I'm not at all surprised there were a few bumps.

The folks in the IRR likely thought of themselves as former soldiers, forgetting about the "ready" part.

The first Gulf War was the first time that the "Total Force" doctrine (established in 1970) was put into practice. I'm not at all surprised there were a few bumps.

I would definately have to say you are right about being thought of as "part timers". As far as the "ready" part goes it basically meant that we were ready to drop what we were doing and report for duty as we were ordered to.

I never made it to Gulf War 1 (but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express...jk) but I did get a letter to report to the Piccatiny Arsenal in late March of '91, thank God Saddam capitulated and it wasn't the blood bath we thought it should be.

If all men are created equal

The second school of thought makes the answers easier. If you aren't an American, then the Constitution cannot be applied. It makes things like torture and denial of habeas rights easier to palate

Does a greater hypocricy exsist? to me its not a question of does the constitution apply to non-citizens or not. it's a question of are you willing to betray the principles we set forth with the declaration of independance? the constitution is merely the settings of the fundamental values as the absolute of LAW!
A mere formality to peoples of honor and principal.
We as Americans should be granting the principals(if not the actuall laws) of habeous corpus, humane treatment, speedy trials, trial by jury, and on and on to anyone. non-citizen, enemy combatant, formal POW, frakking Bozo the clown.
why? because it's who we are! it's what makes us and our system of laws and government 5000X better than thiers. doesn't matter what they do. or how low and inhumane they sink. we play by our rules! and our rules apply across the board equally in all situations.

Anything else takes away our claim as a nation of morales, principals, and equality.
Wich pretty much leaves us as lying, hypocritical, amorale assholes.

Wich pretty much leaves us as lying, hypocritical, amorale assholes.


Umm, Velvet, you are not advocating the Bush-Cheney cartel are you? hehehe
:D

If the government thinks they can do it to our enemies...what happens If they think we are their enemy if we do not support them in their policies? Could this be a problem for us like in the next 50 years with our passivity in the loss of slowly losing our rights in the name of making our country safer because we would live in fear otherwise? I wonder if there is going to be ramifications for us.

Seems we are taking our freedoms for granted and not fighting for them like we should on our own home land. I can say that some blame can rest on me just as it can for every person who is not making time in their life to actively work on maintaining the rights of freedom, IE..our time. But I could just be lumped in with many from the general population of those that just vote and complain. We let others pick our candidates to choose from. We are stuck in a rut, IMHO.

I think our passivity in losing rights due to our fear could very well make trouble for us. :(

If the government thinks they can do it to our enemies...what happens If they think we are their enemy if we do not support them in their policies? Could this be a problem for us like in the next 50 years with our passivity in the loss of slowly losing our rights in the name of making our country safer because we would live in fear otherwise? I wonder if there is going to be ramifications for us.

Seems we are taking our freedoms for granted and not fighting for them like we should on our own home land. I can say that some blame can rest on me just as it can for every person who is not making time in their life to actively work on maintaining the rights of freedom, IE..our time. But I could just be lumped in with many from the general population of those that just vote and complain. We let others pick our candidates to choose from. We are stuck in a rut, IMHO.

I think our passivity in losing rights due to our fear could very well make trouble for us. :(

Exactly!

Here is the danger Akipt..

Our nation was founded, at its core, and this is the most important principle we have, with the solemn belief that Government does not grant certain rights, all humans are born with them, it is the job of the government to protect these rights for us.Yup, agree with you so far.The problem becomes when this instrument of protection which we have created deliberatly, systematically and institutionally starts intentionally depriving people of the basic rights which it is supposed to hold as sacred, and violated only in the most extreme of times.

The message the government sends is that these people dont have these rights because they arent American... they do not have these rights because the GOVERNMENT has not granted them to them. And then you lose the primary point. The GOVERNMENT didn't take their rights away, THEY threw away their most precious God given rights the moment they stepped on a battlefield armed without a uniform.

They spit on those rights you and I hold so dear. Just one terrorist/unlawful combatant does more damage to civilization than all the pedophilic rapist serial killers in human history combined. No, the government didn't take their rights, they turned them in to tear down the pillars of civilization that are so crucial.

Yes, Jefferson was responding to his purchase of foreign territory.. but it's the first reference to "The Constitution isn't a suicide pact":

"...strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means."As I said above and no one bothered to disagree, Bush did not invent rendition nor secret prisons nor water-boarding nor domestic spying, but I believe he is the first to actually address many of these issues as a president.

As you can see from other threads here, even Hiroshima is held against us. You're never going to win against people like that.

Unfortunately, their willingness to do the job and do it well isn't winning the peace. Political reconciliation in Iraq isn't happening, per the Iraqis themselves. Political reconciliation isn't happening here in the states either. Give it time.

Todays troops are no better trained, no more disciplined, no more generous and no more giving than units that fought in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Beirut, Desert Storm. Todays troops simply uphold the traditions and standards set by those who went before them. Rover, sorry I rushed, no offense man.

But what meant was, the military as a whole has never ever been tasked to do so much humanitarian work in its history as it does now, central to its mission on the battlefield.

Our fine military has rebuilt cities after earthquakes, rushed through hurricanes to rescue people from roof tops, and steamed ahead entire fleets to save a people after a tsunami... but never has it gone to battle as it did in Afghanistan and Iraq with core planning to avoid destroying as much as possible and accomodate so many refugees and captured soldiers. And of course we saved the oil fields http://www.ayonae.ro/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

Anyway full disclosure, I'm prejudice on this part... some of my duties as a member of the Vast Military Industrial Complex is to support above mentioned missions. Not a day goes by I stand in awe at what our military can and continues to do each and every day around the world. Wish I could say more http://www.ayonae.ro/images/smilies/wink.gif

And then you lose the primary point. The GOVERNMENT didn't take their rights away, THEY threw away their most precious God given rights the moment they stepped on a battlefield armed without a uniform.

They spit on those rights you and I hold so dear. Just one terrorist/unlawful combatant does more damage to civilization than all the pedophilic rapist serial killers in human history combined. No, the government didn't take their rights, they turned them in to tear down the pillars of civilization that are so crucial.

Yes, Jefferson was responding to his purchase of foreign territory.. but it's the first reference to "The Constitution isn't a suicide pact":

And we know this how? One of the most important rights we enjoy is putting the burden of proof on the accuser. The entirety of proof in most of these cases is "We are the government and we say so, so trust us"
Sorry.. I don't trust the government. I want my government completely accountable and completely transparent.

And these aren't all Battlefield pickups. Thats mythology. Khalid Sheik Muhammad is a prime example. I'm not saying he probably doesn't deserve to be there, but he was there for 4 years without any presentation of evidence. Completely on the say so of the government.
Other examples:
Omar Deghayes: Arrested in his family home in Pakistan and delivered to Git Mo
Murat Kurnaz: arrested by Pakistani officials and delivered to US
Juma Al Dossary: arrested in Saudi Arabia because one of the Lackawana Six said he gave a fiery speech at a Terrorist training camp.
Bilal Khazal: Arrested in Sydney Australia, charged with publishing an inflammatory speech on the internet that called for terrorist acts. (20 total Gitmo Prisoners with arrests in Australia)
Mohammad Harkat arrested in Toronto, Canada (21 total arrests of people inside Canada and brought to Gitmo)
hell.. look for yourself
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Guant%C3%A1namo_Bay_detainees#Surnames_beg inning_with_E

While, yes.. many of them were picked up in Afghanistan or Iraq far many more were picked up in their homes or their work or nowhere near combat.

As a sidenote:
THEY threw away their most precious God given rights the moment they stepped on a battlefield armed without a uniform.

http://www.boxboroughminutemen.org/Uniform.htm

interesting... no?

http://www.boxboroughminutemen.org/Uniform.htm

interesting... no? I know this isn't what you meant to do, but thanks for proving one of my points earlier.

If only Al-quida took their battles as far from towns and other non-combatants as much as possible, we wouldn't be talking about this today.

I know this isn't what you meant to do, but thanks for proving one of my points earlier.

If only Al-quida took their battles as far from towns and other non-combatants as much as possible, we wouldn't be talking about this today.

Where would you like Al-queda to take the fight? wide open fields in the middle of nowhere, where they can be bombed from above and not even see a target anywhere?

Where would you like Al-queda to take the fight? wide open fields in the middle of nowhere, where they can be bombed from above and not even see a target anywhere?Yes, I would like all Al-quida and any morons around the world who think they have a legitimate complaint to spontaneously explode into a spray of red goo.

Yes, I would like all Al-quida and any morons around the world who think they have a legitimate complaint to spontaneously explode into a spray of red goo.

Exactly, unfortunatly Just like you dont want our soldiers to spontaneously explode into a spray of red goo, they would prefer to stay alive as long as possible as well.

Three or four years of poli sci courses taught you that?

If only Al-quida took their battles as far from towns and other non-combatants as much as possible, we wouldn't be talking about this today.

Three or four years of poli sci courses taught you that?

...

......

I'm not saying don't kill them or detain them forever if possible.. Just provide proof if you want to continuously imprison them, and don't torture them. Not really a lot to ask. Basic, fundamental human rights.

The basic problem is this is what war has become in our times.. Nanjing, Stalingrad, Battle of Britain, Fire Bombing of Japan, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, ect, ect... The Pandoras Box has been opened and it there are no longer any targets off limits in war, sadly, tragically.

I'm not saying this is WW2. I'm saying that technology has advanced to the point where 2 armies no longer meet on the field of battle far from the civilian populations.

Our war for independence was fought against the British, who used the traditional Napoleonic style infantry lines and concentrated fire vs the Colonialists who used trees and stone walls as cover.
Tactics are dictated by available resources and technology. If Patrick Henry had C-4, you bet your ass there would have been pieces of British troops scattered all over Boston. If the British had F-16s and Satellites, you can be well assured that they would have used them to maximum effect... and the Rebels would have quickly learned that gathering in one place, out in the open makes them Napalm magnets. But they certainly would not have given up fighting.

Are the goals of Al-Queda evil? Absolutely. Are their methods of fear and terror repulsive? Completely. But they are inevitable as the after effects of technology.

This is what war is and will be always be. There will be many more 9/11s before we ever see another Waterloo or Battle of the Bulge. It is the violent part of our nature to war on each other, to kill one another. Like grass coming up through the sidewalk, war will find a way to spring up, despite any technological advantage or deficiency.

Lets try not to be too shocked or react with such aghast to these people fighting our troops without uniforms or lining up in neat formations.. It levels the playing field for them.

War stopped being a test of skill and has become a test of resolve. How much suffering can your side endure? What price in the blood of your people are you willing to pay for your goals? Bush and his company were fools to believe that you can START a war and not pay the butchers bill. It will have its pound of flesh.

Bin Laden believes his side will win because they are willing to sacrifice everything, to fight until total annihilation. The North Vietnamese showed this insane determination.

War is an Auction of death, and the losing side is the one who will not meet the auctioneers call.

Victory is not glorious.. it is a commodity, bought and sold.

I don't believe I have ever seen it put any better.

Aye L2, well said and sadly very true.

I am going to have to agree with you as well, Good post Lleauric

L2, you have summed it all up in a nutshell...

+rep to you.