How about we stick with the society in which fighting evil involves more than a captive vacation to the Caribbean.
Isn't war enough? You do realize that the people dying and suffering against the US in conflicts are far from just a whole bunch of ********s? Many of them are going to be reasonably young and inexperienced and simply going along with the pressure, doing what they think is right. Good people. Those who 'deserve' torture most are bound to be among the more resistant to it, because they are going to be experienced in this sort of thing. It's not like it's all that hard, all you have to do is lie in a way that is close enough to the truth that they won't know you are lying, and it's not like there are any truly reliable methods of detecting lying. So, the people you are most likely going to succeed with torture, are going to be most likely really not very bad people, and perhaps more importantly, probably don't require torture to be coerced.
I'll repeat that the US government investigated the CIA's torture practices and found zero credible cases of effective use of torture, and concluded it also damaged US reputation. So, it's not worth it at all in any case.
Whatever techniques are, or are not used (if the data says torture does not work, don't use it!) - they made their decision when they picked whichever side they picked.
@Highroller: I suppose you are unaware of the barbaric and evil acts Islamic extremists commit on almost a daily basis. But if you are going to speak from an ivory tower, you'll have to drop the moral equivalency nonsense.
Besides, if we were shifting more right in recent history, it would be as a symptom of how far left we have been pushed in the last hundred years by Progressivism.
What exactly are we defining as "far to the left?" Gay marriage? The Civil Rights movement? Roe v Wade? America is considered to be very conservative by the majority of the developed world. Calling it "far to the left" is laughable.
Would you mind doing so? That way we can gauge what you actually mean.
Trump is a dangerous disgrace, an insincere and unprepared candidate more interested in amassing power and appealing to anger than in solving problems. While Hillary Clinton is an unlikeable, perhaps vaguely corrupt, old-time politician with tons of experience in international and domestic affairs. I go with Clinton ten times out of ten, but I understand the resentment and frustration with "politics as usual."
I get the frustration. But I'll take politics as usual over Trump.
I'm happy to discuss him here, however inclined, because people on this forum seem smart, educated, invested and sincere. I don't talk to many Trump supporters in real life who can give an argument beyond "telling it like it is" (but he lies, you know that right?) or "hating Hillary" (I get it, but this isn't your guy.) Trump is, in my opinion, a performer with no substance and a dangerous disgrace who's *insincerely* appealing to the anger in our country without providing solutions beyond-- what a coincidence!-- giving a completely unqualified and unstable angry man the nuclear codes.
Radical Islam is a real and serious threat, of course, but I trust our Secretary of State to deal with it more than I trust a reality show star, to be honest. When you remove the names, it becomes pretty silly IMO.
@nevolo I completely understand your frustration with the Left complaining over tiny slivers of smug while evil is allowed full and actual reign. It is infuriating. That said, Hillary Clinton's biggest critique on the left is that she's a hawk; meaning, of course, that she is able and willing to fight evil abroad, even if that's problematic.
I don't trust Trump to do anything but talk. I believe Secretary Clinton has been restrained by President, and is willing and capable to handle ISIS and more. I understand your demographic frustration, but that's my analysis of the candidates. As a centrist (who's been forced Left by the freak-s[/i]how of the Republican primaries) Romney's critique of Trump struck me as influential. It's worth a watch.
@Highroller: I suppose you are unaware of the barbaric and evil acts Islamic extremists commit on almost a daily basis. But if you are going to speak from an ivory tower, you'll have to drop the moral equivalency nonsense.
I'm glad he has your vote of confidence. Except, when one says they are not sure what stabbing Jewish babies has to do with terrorists it seems evident to the contrary.
My confusion was with regards to where the hell you got that I was (A) a leftist and (B) arguing for moral equivalency.
Also, pouring water on a serial murderer's face to find another serial murderer does not strike me as immoral.
It is, actually. It's called torture, which is a war crime and is immoral. It's also, as the CIA itself pointed out, ineffective. So you're essentially waterboarding someone for no good reason. Which is immoral.
I don't trust Trump to do anything but talk. I believe Secretary Clinton has been restrained by President, and is willing and capable to handle ISIS and more.
Also, pouring water on a serial murderer's face to find another serial murderer does not strike me as immoral.
Try reading the Constitution, O conservative.
1. The constitution does not apply to terrorists. 2. Whether something is moral or immoral (what my statement pertained to) is not necessarily the same as if it is constitutional
1. The constitution does not apply to terrorists. 2. Whether something is moral or immoral (what my statement pertained to) is not necessarily the same as if it is constitutional
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted..."
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted..."
You're forgetting that that amendment doesn't apply to bad guys. Just like the first amendment doesn't protect the speech of people I disagree with, the fourth amendment doesn't apply to people look like they're hiding something and the sixth doesn't apply to people who obviously did it. It's all there in the fine print.
Re: Benghazi, I understand your frustrations. Hillary was found cleared of wrongdoing by a Republican-led committee: if you, like many, view politicians in cahoots, this doesn't assuage any suspicion of impropriety.
Of course, if we're bringing up Benghazi we should discuss the other embassy killings that happened under George W.Bush, thirteen total attacks that involved 60 deaths. There's an argument to be made that the impropriety surrounding Benghazi is more specifically damning than the others, but it's worth mentioning that this, unfortunately, isn't unprecedented.
Below are a Conservative and Liberal comparison of Benghazi as compared to other consulate attacks.
On another note, I'm relieved and happy to see the level of discourse here is high and intelligent, while remaining as friendly as it can given the larger political environment.
I strongly support Hillary Clinton over a Trump candidacy, but would be happily relieved to see Mitt Romney somehow emerge as a candidate for President. In my eyes, Trump is no serious alternative and a dangerous, vile figure in American politics. I would encourage Conservatives to look to another candidate.
You're forgetting that that amendment doesn't apply to bad guys. Just like the first amendment doesn't protect the speech of people I disagree with, the fourth amendment doesn't apply to people look like they're hiding something and the sixth doesn't apply to people who obviously did it. It's all there in the fine print.
Where does it say in the Constitution that "bad guys" don't get the treatment of the Bill of Rights?
You're forgetting that that amendment doesn't apply to bad guys. Just like the first amendment doesn't protect the speech of people I disagree with, the fourth amendment doesn't apply to people look like they're hiding something and the sixth doesn't apply to people who obviously did it. It's all there in the fine print.
Where does it say in the Constitution that "bad guys" don't get the treatment of the Bill of Rights?
I am well nigh certain that that was sarcasm.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
I believe the point he was trying to make on the Constitution comment was: people who are not citizens of the US do not have those protections. Which is, you know, legally true. Unless you wish to argue that all men of the Earth have an equal right to exist within the United States, which they do not--under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, he is technically correct that the US government could use torture as a means of interrogation. Whether or not it is an effective means is a different matter altogether.
When the Constitution restricts the scope of a right or power, it says so expressly. It makes no such restriction in the Eighth Amendment. Were that not enough, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection of the laws to every "person", not every "citizen".
2. Whether something is moral or immoral (what my statement pertained to) is not necessarily the same as if it is constitutional
The Constitution establishes a minimal baseline of conduct. Not everything that is constitutional is moral, but if something is unconstitutional it's almost certainly immoral.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Unless you wish to argue that all men of the Earth have an equal right to exist within the United States, which they do not--under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, he is technically correct that the US government could use torture as a means of interrogation.
What does naturalization law have to do with torture?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Whether or not an arbitrary individual is a citizen and therefore entitled to rights and powers granted or protected by the Constitution is dependent upon Natualization Law.
Whether or not an arbitrary individual is a citizen and therefore entitled to rights and powers granted or protected by the Constitution is dependent upon Natualization Law.
The fact that Congress has control over citizenship is a very good reason why citizenship is not required for constitutional protection. The protections would be meaningless if Congress could just pass a law stripping people of their citizenship and then violate those protections.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I agree with your second sentence. The first requires additional clarification, as it seems to violate the idea of sovereignty, the social contract, and the tradition of SCOTUS to rule as though the preamble establishes the Constitution as only applicable to US citizens and non-citizen residents who have committed no crimes here or in their home countries.
You're forgetting that that amendment doesn't apply to bad guys. Just like the first amendment doesn't protect the speech of people I disagree with, the fourth amendment doesn't apply to people look like they're hiding something and the sixth doesn't apply to people who obviously did it. It's all there in the fine print.
Where does it say in the Constitution that "bad guys" don't get the treatment of the Bill of Rights?
I am well nigh certain that that was sarcasm.
I take everything so literally sometimes over the internet. "Bad guys" should have been the tip off I suppose
Whatever techniques are, or are not used (if the data says torture does not work, don't use it!) - they made their decision when they picked whichever side they picked.
It's very easy to boil down conflicts to sides. It's in fact way too easy.
I can't explain the number of conflicted view points concisely that exist in a war torn region like Afghanistan. This is going to be a 9 hour commitment (but its an interesting 9 hours!): Bergdahl's Story
Bergdahl is an American soldier who walked off of an American base in Afghanistan and was captured by the Taliban (and held in Pakistan). It's extremely interesting to see just how many different sides there are, how people pick them, how assumptions and misunderstandings create new sides you didn't think could exist. What I'm getting at is that: it's not that simple for most. A person in a small village who is protecting his family because he THINKS americans are there to kill Muslims isn't picking the side of terrorists at all, but to an american soldier it might look that way. This is why PERCEPTION, (at the root of the current Trump election even), is so important. Being able to understand other people shows you how truly complex this world actually is and why hitting things very hard with a hammer or a military doesn't always fix them.
"Sides"
Pakistan is our Ally. They have nukes. We would prefer they not use them.
Pakistan is extremely worried about India, which also has nukes. They view Afghanistan as a potential power point for India, so they don't want India meddling over there.
Pakistan has "wild west" where a bunch of taliban and Al Qaeda live. While they have a treaty with them, since they just don't have a lot of power in the area there, for peace, they're supposedly helping us undermind the taliban and al qaida by supporting our war effort.
In Afghanistan Karzai (a warrior of sorts who helped overthrow the taliban) is a pretty corrupt guy who doesn't mesh well with the hundreds of villages through out the region.
Each village has its own government, its on its own side.
Both Pakistan and Afghanistan are Muslim countries and yet, its not clear they're friendly on the same side or different sides at any one time.
Within Afghanistan Karzai, The Taliban, Villages, and even Al Qaida are all fighting for power on a global stage with several sides just next door that give us supply lines into the country.
And within that country, we enter with the intention of overthrowing a government to fight the terrorists.
But the people in that country think we're there to kill Muslims.
And they don't believe we'll spend any time there to actually help them (also why would they want our help?)
And we just want a military presence, we don't want to nation build (that takes decades of work and a lot of money)
And Afghanistan has been the victum of a number of invasions (the USSR and the US have both invaded)
We actually created the taliban and al qaeda by funding and giving them weapons during the war with the USSR to help defeat communism.
Some teenager in a village is supposed to make sense out of this and pick the U.S. as his friend? This doesn't compute to me.
The Afghan invasion was fine. They decided to pick a fight (and we apparently made the mess; I'll go with your post as I was never a student of history), you best bring them enough shock and awe to get them back in line. It isn't necessarily good that someone who's kind of screwed from the get-go (your example of the kid-soldier) gets caught in the crossfire. But, we can't say that its evil either - this would reduce a complex situation to simply dichotomies, which as you rightfully say, we cannot do. Whatever one's motives - if they present themselves as a threat to yourself, you do what you need to. That's it.
I don't think we should've gone into Iraq, Egypt or Syria to take down Saddam, whoever was Egypt's president, and Assad. They weren't good people, but they did keep a boot on the terrorists. That's where I feel we really made a mistake overseas.
I don't think we should've gone into Iraq, Egypt or Syria to take down Saddam, whoever was Egypt's president, and Assad. They weren't good people, but they did keep a boot on the terrorists. That's where I feel we really made a mistake overseas.
We haven't gone into Egypt or Syria. Assad and Mubarak were challenged by domestic uprisings.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Whatever techniques are, or are not used (if the data says torture does not work, don't use it!) - they made their decision when they picked whichever side they picked.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Hi, you haven't answered this yet:
Would you mind doing so? That way we can gauge what you actually mean.
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
Trump is a dangerous disgrace, an insincere and unprepared candidate more interested in amassing power and appealing to anger than in solving problems. While Hillary Clinton is an unlikeable, perhaps vaguely corrupt, old-time politician with tons of experience in international and domestic affairs. I go with Clinton ten times out of ten, but I understand the resentment and frustration with "politics as usual."
I get the frustration. But I'll take politics as usual over Trump.
I'm happy to discuss him here, however inclined, because people on this forum seem smart, educated, invested and sincere. I don't talk to many Trump supporters in real life who can give an argument beyond "telling it like it is" (but he lies, you know that right?) or "hating Hillary" (I get it, but this isn't your guy.) Trump is, in my opinion, a performer with no substance and a dangerous disgrace who's *insincerely* appealing to the anger in our country without providing solutions beyond-- what a coincidence!-- giving a completely unqualified and unstable angry man the nuclear codes.
Radical Islam is a real and serious threat, of course, but I trust our Secretary of State to deal with it more than I trust a reality show star, to be honest. When you remove the names, it becomes pretty silly IMO.
I don't trust Trump to do anything but talk. I believe Secretary Clinton has been restrained by President, and is willing and capable to handle ISIS and more. I understand your demographic frustration, but that's my analysis of the candidates. As a centrist (who's been forced Left by the freak-s[/i]how of the Republican primaries) Romney's critique of Trump struck me as influential. It's worth a watch.
I mean, Hillary's alarming, but Trump isn't in any way less so.
My confusion was with regards to where the hell you got that I was (A) a leftist and (B) arguing for moral equivalency.
It is, actually. It's called torture, which is a war crime and is immoral. It's also, as the CIA itself pointed out, ineffective. So you're essentially waterboarding someone for no good reason. Which is immoral.
Bengazi.
1. The constitution does not apply to terrorists. 2. Whether something is moral or immoral (what my statement pertained to) is not necessarily the same as if it is constitutional
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted..."
The GJ way path to no lynching:
You're forgetting that that amendment doesn't apply to bad guys. Just like the first amendment doesn't protect the speech of people I disagree with, the fourth amendment doesn't apply to people look like they're hiding something and the sixth doesn't apply to people who obviously did it. It's all there in the fine print.
Of course, if we're bringing up Benghazi we should discuss the other embassy killings that happened under George W.Bush, thirteen total attacks that involved 60 deaths. There's an argument to be made that the impropriety surrounding Benghazi is more specifically damning than the others, but it's worth mentioning that this, unfortunately, isn't unprecedented.
Below are a Conservative and Liberal comparison of Benghazi as compared to other consulate attacks.
CONSERVATIVE INCLINED: http://www.ijreview.com/2014/05/138727-viral-meme-13-benghazis-happened-bush-taken-apart-destroyed-eyes/
LIBERAL INCLINED: http://thedailybanter.com/2014/05/popular-conservative-publication-tries-and-fails-miserably-to-debunk-our-13-benghazis-article/
On another note, I'm relieved and happy to see the level of discourse here is high and intelligent, while remaining as friendly as it can given the larger political environment.
I strongly support Hillary Clinton over a Trump candidacy, but would be happily relieved to see Mitt Romney somehow emerge as a candidate for President. In my eyes, Trump is no serious alternative and a dangerous, vile figure in American politics. I would encourage Conservatives to look to another candidate.
Where does it say in the Constitution that "bad guys" don't get the treatment of the Bill of Rights?
The GJ way path to no lynching:
Gesundheit.
The Constitution establishes a minimal baseline of conduct. Not everything that is constitutional is moral, but if something is unconstitutional it's almost certainly immoral.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I take everything so literally sometimes over the internet. "Bad guys" should have been the tip off I suppose
The GJ way path to no lynching:
The Afghan invasion was fine. They decided to pick a fight (and we apparently made the mess; I'll go with your post as I was never a student of history), you best bring them enough shock and awe to get them back in line. It isn't necessarily good that someone who's kind of screwed from the get-go (your example of the kid-soldier) gets caught in the crossfire. But, we can't say that its evil either - this would reduce a complex situation to simply dichotomies, which as you rightfully say, we cannot do. Whatever one's motives - if they present themselves as a threat to yourself, you do what you need to. That's it.
I don't think we should've gone into Iraq, Egypt or Syria to take down Saddam, whoever was Egypt's president, and Assad. They weren't good people, but they did keep a boot on the terrorists. That's where I feel we really made a mistake overseas.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.