President Obama DERELICT at his number 1 responsibilty

[Iriemon]

Iriemon, your stated reasoning behind the actual definition of these items as torture was that we previously would have prosecuted people for using some of these techniques under torture statutes. I contend that not all laws are right and don't always reflect current values and/or ideas. For instance, for a long time here in my state of Virginia, it was legally acceptable, by law, to kill your wife and/or lover if you caught them in the middle of an affair. I'm sure there were also many laws prohibiting the rights of african americans around as well. These laws make no sense to us today and have been shown to be outmoded. Basing the current validity of these practices on old laws made decades ago is equally pointless.

So your point is the US was wrong to convict Japanese guys for war crimes for waterboarding our guys, it was all a big mistake, it was OK for the Japs to do it, and the law was wrong in those days because the correct law for the US is to use the torture techniques of the Gestapo, IJA and Khmer Rouge.

Thanks for your opinion.

If Obama wants to stop these techniques, I'd be against it, but digress; the american people voted for his way, and he clearly stated he was against them. However, I contend his release of the memos and the media circus created by it IS negative for America, and only serves to worsen our image on several fronts. It also strikes me as horrible that we are considering prosecuting interrogators (sp?) ex post facto for operating within the legal realm of their time (although I strongly suspect that the case will get thrown out for that very reason). This was a pointless move, and definitely diminishes the president somewhat in my mind.

You mean the release of the memos worsens our image compared to our image as a nation that tortures people?

Thanks for your opinion.

 

[knightowl]

So your point is the US was wrong to convict Japanese guys for war crimes for waterboarding our guys, it was all a big mistake, it was OK for the Japs to do it, and the law was wrong in those days because the correct law for the US is to use the torture techniques of the Gestapo, IJA and Khmer Rouge.

If that would have been the extent of their "torture" yes, I would say that was wrong. However we all know that was the tip of the iceberg for them, and waterboarding was not their worst offense.

You mean the release of the memos that dreg up and perpetuate negative worldwide opinions about percieved torture in defense of our country worsens our image compared to our image as a nation that people think tortures people?

Your spin not withstanding, I agree on it as changed above.

Thanks for your opinion.

I don't appreciate the condescendency/sarcasm in these statements. I'm here trying to have an intellectual, open-minded discussion. I have already admitted that several points you have made have changed my opinion on this matter, and more clearly shaped my stance.

 

[Iriemon]

So your point is the US was wrong to convict Japanese guys for war crimes for waterboarding our guys, it was all a big mistake, it was OK for the Japs to do it, and the law was wrong in those days because the correct law for the US is to use the torture techniques of the Gestapo, IJA and Khmer Rouge.

If that would have been the extent of their "torture" yes, I would say that was wrong. However we all know that was the tip of the iceberg for them, and waterboarding was not their worst offense.

So what is your point? Where not as bad as the Japs in WWII. I agree. So what.

You mean the release of the memos that dreg up and perpetuate negative worldwide opinions about percieved torture in defense of our country worsens our image compared to our image as a nation that people think tortures people?

Your spin not withstanding, I agree on it as changed above.

I disagree that release of the memos worses our image compared to being viewed as a nation that tortures people.

Thanks for your opinion.

I don't appreciate the condescendency/sarcasm in these statements. I'm here trying to have an intellectual, open-minded discussion. I have already admitted that several points you have made have changed my opinion on this matter, and more clearly shaped my stance.

I apologize for sounding smart-assed, it's a fault. Obviously we have completely different views and opinions.

In my opinion, it is especially important in this war of ideals against radical Islam that we stand by the principles that best demonstrate American values and principles that we want them to adopt, and things that made America what Reagan called the shining city on the hill. Things like democracy, rule of law, equality, human rights, due process and stuff like that.

When we stand by those values, we reinforce them. When we torture people, when we look them away forever without a hearing or trial or proof of guilt, we diminish those values and blur the line between who are the good guys and who are the bad guys and our enemy can paint us as hypocrites and that what we claim we stand for is meaningless.

Waterboarding is the torture tactic of some of the worst regimes of all time. The Imperial Japanese Army. The Gestapo. The Khmer Rouge.

I don't think it benefits us in this war of ideals to adopt the tactics of those kinds of regimes.

We win by standing by what America stands for.

 

[knightowl]

So what is your point? Where not as bad as the Japs in WWII. I agree. So what.

I wasn't trying to make a point really. You questioned my judgement on an issue. I decisively made my personal call, and explained my reasoning.

I disagree that release of the memos worses our image compared to being viewed as a nation that tortures people.

I apologize for sounding smart-assed, it's a fault. Obviously we have completely different views and opinions.

In my opinion, it is especially important in this war of ideals against radical Islam that we stand by the principles that best demonstrate American values and principles that we want them to adopt, and things that made America what Reagan called the shining city on the hill. Things like democracy, rule of law, equality, human rights, due process and stuff like that.

When we stand by those values, we reinforce them. When we torture people, when we look them away forever without a hearing or trial or proof of guilt, we diminish those values and blur the line between who are the good guys and who are the bad guys and our enemy can paint us as hypocrites and that what we claim we stand for is meaningless.

Waterboarding is the torture tactic of some of the worst regimes of all time. The Imperial Japanese Army. The Gestapo. The Khmer Rouge.

I don't think it benefits us in this war of ideals to adopt the tactics of those kinds of regimes.

We win by standing by what America stands for.

I disagree that have completely different views and opinions. In fact I would argue that we agree more than we disagree. I agree with all the italicized parts above for instance.

Regardless, I believe we've fully explored this issue and have come to the end of my participation in it. I've appreciated this discourse and look forward to rationally debating other issues in the future.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Still angry that Bush, Cheney, and Sarah Palin were rejected by american voters, overwhelmingly?

You'll live.

Uh. I may be wrong, but I believe President Bust and Vice President Chaney were elected twice.

 

[oreo]

President Obama--on his 100 day media interview--used the Winston Churchill's comment during the London Blitz during 1929--when Churchill stated: "We do not torture."

Not for one single second do I believe that if Winston Churchill KNEW he could STOP the nightly bombings of London--that he would not have waterboarded every single captive.

Obama--used a different enemy under completely different circumstances to defend his policy against the enhanced interrogation technics. Winston Churchill while under the London Blitz knew that by waterboarding a captive would NOT stop the nightly bombings. We know that by waterboarding a high level operative within a terrorist group has & will SAVE innocent lives. "That's the difference."

Obama by using the London Blitz--is stating that it's O.K. for a terrorist to kill innocent American citizens-as long as our "moral clarity" remains intact. And that is B.S.