Obama to address the Nation. (Osama bin Laden is dead)

#976
#976
Burhead said:
So if I understand correctly you think they should be awarded protection under the Geneva Conventions?
Click to expand...

I think when they're in our custody on our soil, they ought to be treated the way we think human beings are to be treated. I am under no illusions of them being uniformed soldiers that fall under the Geneva Convention.
 
#978
#978
IPorange said:
None, probably. But water boarding can have lethal complications, and I don't think we'd know if someone had died anyway. That's not really consequential to what I've been saying, as I am not arguing moral equivalencies. I want us to be the shining beacon on the hill, not just better than camel-****ing salafist fools who run a religious crusade fueled of hate and lust for young girls.
Click to expand...

I can't help but think wikileaks or someone on the inside with an agenda wouldn't let it be known if someone was killed through interrogation.

Three people were warerboarded (if you believe what was published). All higher-ups in al qaeda that has been successfully trained to survive normal interrogation techniques. It's not as if we were running an assembly line to the waterboarding chamber of every person that ran through Gitmo.

I really just don't have a problem with doing what is necessary to leaders of said group you mentioned if the result is the protection and safety of the world's population, primarily the US. We're not doing it to innocent men. We're doing it to self-professed leaders of an universally-accepted criminal group that has no problem using whatever means necessary to kill innocent people.

There just seems to be a difference between the two things IMO.
 
#979
#979
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
Just like the awarded reporter Daniel Pearl. Oh wait, they chopped off his head
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I fail to see your point. We should prescribe to Hammurabi's Law for foreign nationals? If we encounter those bastards in the field, we should utilize lethal force. If we somehow do capture them, we can't start cutting off body parts without it reflecting on us. We're better than that. That doesn't make us weak.
 
#980
#980
IPorange said:
I think when they're in our custody on our soil, they ought to be treated the way we think human beings are to be treated. I am under no illusions of them being uniformed soldiers that fall under the Geneva Convention.
Click to expand...

Hence why they were never brought on our soil.
 
#981
#981
tigervol9802 said:
I can't help but think wikileaks or someone on the inside with an agenda wouldn't let it be known if someone was killed through interrogation.

Three people were warerboarded (if you believe what was published). All higher-ups in al qaeda that has been successfully trained to survive normal interrogation techniques. It's not as if we were running an assembly line to the waterboarding chamber of every person that ran through Gitmo.

I really just don't have a problem with doing what is necessary to leaders of said group you mentioned if the result is the protection and safety of the world's population, primarily the US. We're not doing it to innocent men. We're doing it to self-professed leaders of an universally-accepted criminal group that has no problem using whatever means necessary to kill innocent people.

There just seems to be a difference between the two things IMO.
Click to expand...

I don't know that I am opposed to it being a tool in the arsenal, but it's a near-nuclear one in my opinion. And it makes me nervous what some future leader would do with such power. That's how I feel about much of the policies that came out of our war on terror. Hell, Homeland security is hacking private citizen's servers that broadcast sports games under the umbrella of the Patriot Act "in the interest of national security." Does that sound right? You rarely see identified police patrol vehicles these days now, because of changes coming from the Patriot Act and others. So what sort of stretches or abuses will come to non-citizens, with tools like torture? I'm not trying to go all "1984" here, but we seem to have gotten a bit grittier as a nation than I would like.
 
#983
#983
IPorange said:
I don't know that I am opposed to it being a tool in the arsenal, but it's a near-nuclear one in my opinion. And it makes me nervous what some future leader would do with such power. That's how I feel about much of the policies that came out of our war on terror. Hell, Homeland security is hacking private citizen's servers that broadcast sports games under the umbrella of the Patriot Act "in the interest of national security." Does that sound right? You rarely see identified police patrol vehicles these days now, because of changes coming from the Patriot Act and others. So what sort of stretches or abuses will come to non-citizens, with tools like torture? I'm not trying to go all "1984" here, but we seem to have gotten a bit grittier as a nation than I would like.
Click to expand...

If you want to argue Patriot Act and such I'm right along with you for quite a bit of it.

I'm just saying in the situation of who waterboarding was presumed on, it had reached what you called "near nuclear level".
 
#985
#985
tigervol9802 said:
If you want to argue Patriot Act and such I'm right along with you for quite a bit of it.

I'm just saying in the situation of who waterboarding was presumed on, it had reached what you called "near nuclear level".
Click to expand...

I don't know what levels were reached. We only know what we're told, and that is what makes me so gun-shy about it. As a policy, we shouldn't torture. If situations arise where we must, we shouldn't talk about and keep it as classified as our fake moon landing and time travel experiments.
 
#986
#986
IPorange said:
I don't know what levels were reached. We only know what we're told, and that is what makes me so gun-shy about it. As a policy, we shouldn't torture. If situations arise where we must, we shouldn't talk about and keep it as classified as our fake moon landing and time travel experiments.
Click to expand...

Don't forget Area 51.
 
#990
#990
IPorange said:
You see what I'm saying, though. We shouldn't do it, even if we actually do it.
Click to expand...

I fall into the category of people who thinks it's much better if we as a public know a little as possible about the inner-workings of the government, especially the FBI, CIA, and military, so yes I see what you are saying.
 
#991
#991
tigervol9802 said:
I fall into the category of people who thinks it's much better if we as a public know a little as possible about the inner-workings of the government, especially the FBI, CIA, and military, so yes I see what you are saying.
Click to expand...

You seem far too conservative for this viewpoint.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#992
#992
tigervol9802 said:
I fall into the category of people who thinks it's much better if we as a public know a little as possible about the inner-workings of the government, especially the FBI, CIA, and military, so yes I see what you are saying.
Click to expand...

kind of agree but some still need to be held accountable (at least domestically)
 
#993
#993
230006_2019429771242_1408846058_2380604_5191173_n.jpg
 
#994
#994
Hobock said:
You seem far too conservative for this viewpoint.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

It's not that a I necessarily trust them, but moreso that I just happen to trust them more than the common moron on the street that has heard something that it pretty classified in the CIA.

Limited, strong, effective government is my philosophy.
 
#996
#996
tigervol9802 said:
It's not that a I necessarily trust them, but moreso that I just happen to trust them more than the common moron on the street that has heard something that it pretty classified in the CIA.

Limited, strong, effective government is my philosophy.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. Total transparency would be a social disaster.

A part of me wants Abu Grab to happen but doesn't want to see it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#997
#997
In this matter, I think Colonel Jessup had it exactly right. We can't handle the truth. I'm ok not knowing (or maybe better off not having to know in the first place) what goes on behind those walls. I would generally be opposed to torture (pro death penalty, however) but I could go to some dark places if I needed info on the whereabouts of one of my daughters or the person(s) responsible for harming them.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#998
#998
Hobock said:
I agree with you. Total transparency would be a social disaster.

A part of me wants Abu Grab to happen but doesn't want to see it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I don't want it to happen, but when it does I want it to be handled internally without the public knowing about it.
 
#999
#999
tigervol9802 said:
I don't want it to happen, but when it does I want it to be handled internally without the public knowing about it.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And I don't want to know about the loophole facilities in Eastern Europe. Or Qurans being flushed down commodes, or whatever. That's why I have elected congressmen for, to worry about that stuff and keep people accountable.
 
#1,000
#1,000
Regulator said:
In this matter, I think Colonel Jessup had it exactly right. We can't handle the truth. I'm ok not knowing (or maybe better off not having to know in the first place) what goes on behind those walls. I would generally be opposed to torture (pro death penalty, however) but I could go to some dark places if I needed info on the whereabouts of one of my daughters or the person(s) responsible for harming them.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Liam Neeson, is that you?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top