Thank You, CIA Tape-Destroyers and Mr. Kiriakou
The back-to-back revelations about destroyed tapes of CIA-led interrogations and confirmation (albeit second-hand) of waterboarding by a former CIA agent has elevated the discussion of torture, and our national policy (politics), beyond the blogosphere.
Evidence: the Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) comparison of waterboarding and torture to swimming. (By the way, he sticks to the "we aren't doing it anyway" Administration talking point.)
All citizens should be asking themselves, "When, if ever, is torture OK? What is our government doing in our names? And are we OK with it?" This is too important to leave to closed door discussions among those in power. And it's too important to leave to knee-jerk responses.
The question of torture is often shunted off to ethicists and moral philosophers and not a few lawyers. In a comment on a prior post on this topic, a reader tosses out a modified "ticking bomb" scenario and dares "lefties" to answer:
Suppose you have a child and that child is being held hostage by Al Qaeda. Your child will be beheaded by noon the nest day but the CIA captures an Al Qaeda suspect who is high up in AQ and it’s highly likely he knows where she’s being held. Do you waterboard or do just walk away?
These are the questions that most lefties avoid. I’m sure you or any other lefty will not answer the question directly. But, that’s the question on the table. Go.
The Ticking Bomb
This hypothetical -- a variation on the ticking bomb scneario -- appears designed to elicit an emotional response; it is both simplistic and unrealistic.
It bears no correlation to the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, which was a fishing expedition; there was no imminent danger, no ticking bomb.
Moreover, this hypothetical is further compromised by the actors: parents would not be in a position to make this decision. Furthermore, their emotional involvement is the reason that in a "normal" kidnapping professionals take over and parents are relegated to the sidelines. Finally, our options are usually not bi-polar (waterboard or walk away).
In the classic ticking bomb hypothetical, the torture of one person (the bad guy) is positioned against against saving thousands, a form of cost-benefit analysis. The person having to make the difficult moral choice is a law officer. This is recurring dramatic theme in popular culture (think Clint Eastwood, Bruce Willis, Mel Gibson) where a) we (the audience) know that the bad guy has the needed information (no ambiguity) and b) the hero successfully saves the innocent(s) in less than 120 minutes.
But real life is not as black-and-white as Hollywood. Moreover, the hypothetical is fraught with flaws:
It presumes that there is a bomb that will explode if not neutralized; the suspect knows where the bomb is located and the bomb has not been moved since the suspect’s arrest; the suspect will provide the necessary information if and only if tortured; the information will enable us to discover and disarm the bomb in time, and so forth. (pdf, p 58)
Also, research does not support the unstated thesis that torture elicits actionaable information. Rebecca Evans (pdf, p 57) reports that the literature suggests "coercive interrogations tend to elicit unreliable intelligence more than they do useful information." Moreover, “many old hands in the business have pointed out that abusing prisoners is not simply illegal and immoral; it is also remarkably ineffective.”
Finally, Kieran Healy shows us the danger of the slippery slope hidden behind the ticking bomb scenario:
If you get me to agree to torturing someone when there’s a ticking bomb, then how hard is it to get me to agree to the following case: we’ve picked up ten guys for questioning but only one of them has the true information. We don’t know which one, so we have to torture the lot. Isn’t torture still justified?
What About Public Opinion?
The BBC reports that most people (59%) around the world are "opposed to torture even if its purpose is to elicit information that could save innocent lives from terrorist attack," that is, even in the ticking-bomb scenario.
In the US, only 36% said "some degree of torture should be allowed if it provides information that saves innocent lives." And how do you know if that information will be forthcoming ... in advance? We aren't living with pre-cogs like those in Minority Report.
Contrary to my reader's suggestion that political idealogy predicts how someone feels about torture, I offer this from the Virginia Law Review (pdf, p 1426 )
Alan Dershowitz suggests that torture should be regulated by a judicial warrant requirement. Liberal Senator Charles Schumer has publicly rejected the idea “that torture should never, ever be used.” He argues that most U.S. senators would back torture to find out where a ticking time bomb is planted. By contrast, William Safire, a self-described “conservative . . . and card-carrying hard-liner[],” expresses revulsion at “phony-tough” pro-torture arguments, and forthrightly labels torture “barbarism.” Examples like these illustrate how vital it is to avoid a simple left-right reductionism.
To sum, most people reject expeditious torture and apologists can be found in both parties.
The Law
What does our Constitution say? It forbids -- forbids -- "cruel and unusual punishment." That should be the end of story.
The US Senate ratified the UN Convention Against Torture, which became effective on 26 June 1987; today 142 nations have ratified it. Although the US is one of those nations, we ratified it with plenty of caveats. Here are two: We do not consider ourselves bound by Article 30. And although the UN declaration defines torture, we insert our own definition ("the United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm...")
So where does leave me in regards to the challenge about the alleged terrorist versus child? I reject the hypothetical because it is unrealistic and bears no relation to the circumstances under which some US leaders are attempting to justify torture. The question as posed is a "gotcha," not unlike another classic: "When did you stop beating your wife?"
As to the classic torture-one-to-save-many scenario, I think the law should make it clear (since we seem to think that the Constitution is unclear) that torture is illegal. The Senate tried to do this (96-2) in 2004. Therefore, any instance of our government torturing people in our names must be made public via a trial. At the trial, let any extenuating circumstances be brought forward as part of the defense.
And charge not the lowest-level employee but the highest ranking official who authorized the act.
For more reading:
- By The Power of Stipulation: I Have The Power!
- Issue Summary: Geneva Conventions
- Liberalism, Torture and the Ticking Bomb (pdf)
- 'Rendition' Realities
- Summary Analysis of CIA Torture Tapes Scandal
- Torture: Ethics v Law
- U.S. Religious Leaders Condemn Torture by the Bush Administration
- What Is Waterboarding?
- Torture and Democracy, buy the book
- Torture: Does It Make Us Safer? Is It Ever OK? A Human Rights Perspective, buy the book
- Torture and the Ticking Bomb, buy the book
- Why Terrorism Works, buy the book
Comments
An historical note:
“Sixty years ago, the United States considered waterboarding to be torture – indeed, to be a war crime. Therefore the beginning of any defense of torture needs to deal with why it should have been a war crime sixty years ago and not today.”
tip
Nice job; I’d like to add one point about the initially posed “hypothetical.” As you mentioned, it’s a rank appeal to emotion and one reason it “works” as one is the assumption that a child-of-one-own’s is “innocent.” So innocent that the preservation of that life is worth everything, including the moral debasement of the parent caused by the parent becoming a torturer. How could that “innocence” continue to survive when the child is reunited with a parent who has now lost an essential part of his or her humanity? It’s also possible to question whether this kind of “innocence” even exists in a War on Terror where our side has been responsible for the deaths of uncounted numbers of children.
RE: #1.
Waterboarding was only one of the technics used. The author extrapolated one word from several others including,beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward.
Nice strawman Ms Gill?
C
Re: using ticking bomb scenarios. On forums such as this one where the author and most readers are far left, it’s important to try to present the argument in language that might instill a little emotion thereby putting the readers in the same position as military/CIA interrogators would be in. The left’s hatred of any and all things military almost always illicits a negative response. Therefore, the child hostage scenario.
If you think that our military hasn’t been in a position where they have brothers in arms going into harms way, or have fellow soldiers captured by the enemy and also have captured members of the enemy, you’re living in denial.
I reject your simplistic arguments against using technics that “might” provide information that would save lives, U.S. lives.
Unfortunately for this country, many bleeding heart pacifists such as the author of this blog have complete control over most all of the mainstream media and use this medium to indoctrinate so many who do not see beyond the headlines.
More people should watch FOXNEWS!
C
Please!
Congress and particularly the Senate Intel Subcommittee are fully aware of the domestic and foreign torture tactics being used even against US citizens, such as this author, in order to force suicides or otherwise nutralize Targets (including whistleblowers who report USA atrocities); USA and its people will reap as it sows. Torture and violence invites more of the same.
Chuck:
It was your scenario, not mine. You are the person who presented your case as “either waterboard or walk away” — not me.
Furthermore, your insistence that this is a partisan issue cannot be supported by the facts. As presented in this post, senior Democrats support ticking-bomb use of torture. I don’t; the hypothetical is built upon a houses of cards.
Moreover, this partisan linkage was also debunked in the prior thread — RT is, I believe, a lower-case liberal — a classification that I am almost positive you would call “leftie” but he supported the use of WB in your scenario. He also went on to point out that your scenario is not realistic.
Thanks, Susan.
I agree with your observation about innocents and the toll torture takes on the torturer.
Perhaps if the high-ranking official who authorizes torture were to be the person who had to carry it out … we might nip some of this in the bud? Technology and bureaucracy makes it too easy for those who “decide” to inflict death and pain on others to be several layers removed from the act … so that the act becomes more like the violence in a computer game than like that on the battlefield of Gettysburg, for example.
To G.S.
No, this author is not aware of your charges. Moreover, we have only hearsay (the CIA’s version) of what they said to the Gang of Eight — no sworn under oath testimony.
My post was debunking your #1 post. Surely you knew this? Again, you big lefties deflect, dodge and divert attention away from your own assertions.
My scenario was in a previous thread, remember?
C
My observation of this being a partisan issue is right on and you know it. Anecdotal stories don’t persuade me. There are people on both sides of this issue and they come from different ideologies but the vast majority of the whining and crying is coming from the left. Conservatives are only responding as they lick their fingers and waive it in the air. You can bet that most all would rather the issue go away.
You use this as a divisive issue to paint conservatives as war mongering emotionless thugs. Go ahead and pretend it’s not true? I know you will.
And, you debunked nothing!
C
Chuck –
And no leftie will give you a direct answer. Darn those equivocators. They must have learned that technique in Equivocation 101 at Blue State U.
Truly yours is the superior intellect.
Here’s Mississippi in in 1926. Oddly enough, waterboarding was torture then. Perhaps it meets with your approval. WWOS — What Would O’Reilly Say?
http://www.isthatlegal.org/archives/2007/11/if_it_was_tortu.html
“Here’s the court:
The state offered . . . testimony of confessions made by the appellant, Fisher. . . [who], after the state had rested, introduced the sheriff, who testified that, he was sent for one night to come and receive a confession of the appellant in the jail; that he went there for that purpose; that when he reached the jail he found a number of parties in the jail; that they had the appellant down upon the floor, tied, and were administering the water cure, a specie of torture well known to the bench and bar of the country.
Fisher relied on a case called White v. State, 182, 91 So. 903, 904 (Miss. 1922), in which the court took — as I understand history in those parts — the unusual step of reversing the murder conviction of a young African-American male, charged with killing a white man (it appears), because his confession was secured by *the cure*. The court said:
. . . [T]he hands of appellant were tied behind him, he was laid upon the floor upon his back, and, while some of the men stood upon his feet, Gilbert, a very heavy man, stood with one foot entirely upon appellant’s breast, and the other foot entirely upon his neck. While in that position what is described as the “water cure” was administered to him in an effort to extort a confession as to where the money was hidden which was supposed to have been taken from the dead man. The “water cure” appears to have consisted of pouring water from a dipper into the nose of appellant, so as to strangle him, thus causing pain and horror, for the purpose of forcing a confession. Under these barbarous circumstances the appellant readily confessed . . . “
“Truly yours is the superior intellect”
I accept your concession.
Those mississippians are always way ahead of the rest of the country, aint they?
So, you gave me a direct answer. One out of 4. I’m surprised! I guess I must be getting through to some of you?
C
Chuck, your scenario is the starting point for this essay and is clearly marked as such.
Clear as mud as usual. No such starting point exists.
C
Chuck –
If you say so!
Hello chuck!
You many time uses the word “lefties” but i dont understand you.
I live in Hungary where in year 1990 was the end of “lefties” power. I am now over 55. You can count, that I lived near 40 year under “lefties” power. I know how lefties speak and think.
LEt me to tell you:
For One leftie is saint, what the gowerment say. No doubt. No asking!
If the goverment say :that is your enemy, the leftie is sure to know who is his enemy.
Our goverment said the capitalismus is our enemy and the capitalismus war our enemy.
The goverment said: human rights are enemy’s blabla for reduce our security, and nobody from lefties asked for human rights.
The goverment said: we if we need – and wee needed – we muss enemies hard interrrogate ( meaning torture) and for lefties war that total normal.
And in the night are coming black cars and humans (ah humans, they was animals, our evil enemies) was deported in gulags (gitmo simile)
And the goverment had secrets. Nobody knew what happened in gulags. And for lefties was that total normal.
No doubt, no ask. Our enemies will us killing, they becomes what they wanted.
PLease Chuck Please!!!
Your comments, your explanations are one in one that, what had I heared from lefties more then 30 Years. You speak one in one, as a member of Hungarian Communist Partei.
Please tell mi please, Whay you as real lefties, say to others they are lefties. In Amerika one communist thinking man as you, not calling leftie?
Hi, Walter — thanks for perseverance!
Regarding the term “leftie” — it is often used as a slur, a derogatory label, by people who consider themselves “conservatives” (”rightie” is the liberal label used for those folks). It is generally not a kind act, whether used by “right or left.”
The US has no true “left” as you have had in Europe. Our “middle” is pretty-much right-of-center, in the context of global political ideology.
Walt,
It’s very diffcult to understand you Walt but I’ll respond this way.
In the U.S. we have a two party system. One is the Conservative party and the other is the Democratic party.
Conservatives lean more towards less government intervention and government regulation. Most Conservatives believe strongly in capitalism. Most Conservatives believe in a strong military and a strong defense. Most Conservatives are well grounded and believe in what they see and aren’t wispy idealists.
The other party is the Democratic party. They believe in more government control and regulation. They believe that the government is the answer for most everything such as healthcare, education, business etc. Democrats want to move our country further down the path of socialism which is more in the direction of Communism. Democrats want to emasculate our military. They despise the military. They would use the military as a tool to bring aid to 3rd world countries instead of using it for what it’s meant for and that’s killing the enemy and breaking things. Liberals also are wispy idealists believing in some euphoric state that just doesn’t exist and never will. Liberals control our media and spew propaganda about farces like human caused global warming.
I’m not sure how you could possibly get the idea that I have communistic tendencies? The author of this site and several others who post are much further down that path than I am.
You cannot compare what we’ve done in Afghanistan to what has happened in Hungary. We don’t go into homes here in the U.S. and do the things you speak of. The party that brought down the Soviet Union is the Conservative party not the Democratic party. Be afraid of the liberals, be very afraid.
I’m afraid my friend, if you read blogs such as this one you are being very misinformed. This blog’s author has no relation to fairness and consistently spins information to persuade naive people like you, to believe that the U.S. is a war mongering hateful country. The only hate spewed on this blog is from the author. She hates this country and wants to make it more like your old Hungary. Take my word for it Walt. These liberals/socialists/Democrats are not on your side.
C
Hi, dear uspolitics!
You beated my little provocation. I know this difference. I want to show on, that Chuck as “rightie” is in ideas more left as lefies, hi thinks as european lefties. For one rightie, these comparison is not too nice to hear. But it is true. Righties in Amerika have many time simile argumentations as our communists, when they from goverment speak. No ask, No doubt.
“hi thinks as european lefties”
How so Walt? Be specific? Try to be brief and pick one trait that is similar?
C
Hi Dear Chuck
Strong military and a strong defense, from you speak was important in Sovjetunion too. More important as human rights and other democratic blabla.
I want to say you, my experience. I dont know exact what democrats wants. But I see what the goverment want: In the name of “war on terror”: secret places,(gitmo-gulags) , so calling enemies without rights, deffense over human rights, dubious interrogations methodes, captured humans-enemies without juristic process, and so on. And secrets, secrets … You can not to know what happens in lagers, under interrogations, yo can have only trust without contols.
PLease chuck please, believe me : this is the Communism. I know. I lived under.
Thanks
Hi, Walter — I thought it was possible that you were being provocative, but I didn’t want to assume.
I understood the implication in your prior — but I think this latest post is more clear.
Maybe because I teach in an environment that has non-native English speakers, I have been able to, for the most part, understand what you are saying. However, just as I would “rephrase” and reflect back if we were in face-to-face conversation, I feel it’s important to do something similar in written communication. It’s important, even with native English speakers, because written text misses inflection and voice.
What do you think about the “new” comment feature — where the comments are in a popup instead of on the page with the post?
Hello Chuck!
I do gladly with you the conversation.
I think I understand what you want but I dont understand how.
Please tell me with other words this part :
“where the comments are in a popup instead of on the page with the post?”
Hier is over 21h.
By and we “see” us tomorrow.
Walt,
You must not be much of a history buff? Who defeated the Japanese? Who defeated Hitler? Who brought down the Soviet Empire? They were brought down mostly in part to our overwhelming military power. Otherwise, you’d be speaking German right now, or, maybe even Russian.
People here are free to come and go as they please. We can leave this country and visit other countries at will. Could they do that in Hungary? In East Germany? In North Korea? China?
Calling the U.S. a communistic state is an insult and so over the top wrong I have to question your education?
Fortunately for you and your ilk, the U.S. is a superpower with noble intent. We’re not perfect but we sure make an attempt.
Are you a pacifist Walt? Do you actually believe that using force is never necessary? I’m just curious?
BTW-You obviously do not know communism.
C
Chuck, he did not say that the US is a communist country.
He drew comparisons — as others have done — between the Republican-led focus on military force and secrecy and the focus on military force and secrecy in communist/totalitarian states.
Basic point is this, we dont have any idea if what the guy said after being tortued was actually true or not. All we have is their word, which doesnt mean anything. As ive stated previously, we’ll never know because the tapes were destroyed. Either he didnt admit anything or they did more than waterboard or it could be a combination of both. We have no proof that waterboarding worked. Either way it was wrong and its risky. You still dont know if the person will actually give up the information that their seeking. Half of them are willing to die over their beliefs, do you actually think they care? I mean honestly, think about it…you’re willing to lay your life on the line for a cause, somebody has captured you, would you actually give up any information or would you allow your vengence to carry on? I seriously doubt he told them anything. I seriously doubt that waterboarding was all they did to him.
Dear chuck
You makes a generalisation.
I speak from the secrets, from the ideas of security over human rigts, of the goverment.
I dont speak from many thinks.
I dont speak from politics in economy, healt, finanz, and more, what the goverment makes. It is possible, that in other thinks the goverment has rights. I dont know, I dont see your internal politics.
I dont speak from many thinks in the past.
Amerika had much, much maked for the world. You writed something from that. Yes you have right, thanks to America for many many thinks.
But we dont speak about other thinks.
And now example:
You have much to thank to your father. And your father now makes something, what you think, it is wrong.
You dont critised, your father because you think if you critised someting what your father makes, you are “against your father”!!????
Or you critised and your father say: Wy are you critising me? 20 years ago I have this and this made for you. Ten years ago have this and this made for you.
You vill not understand why your father say that to you. You will say :thanks father but no relation between those thinks.
———————–
And now back.
Of course, Amerika is a very democratic country. But the demokracy is not given from god. we muss care that.
And the logic that we can break law and human rights, egal what is the ground, is not logic of democracy. I said I know this logic from the time of communism. I said that, not more not less.
You can to be happy, you have only an immagine what is the communism, I have the experience.
Z,
I think you read far too many radical left wing blogs. Your argument that torture doesn’t work is right out of the democratic/moveon.org playbook. So, let’s dismiss the “ticking bomb” scenario since you lefties foolishly believe it would never happen.
The terrorist prisoner, Abu Zubaydah, did cough up valuable information so that just blows you entire argument out of the water. And, if other methods of persuasion were used on this murderer, I really don’t give a rats behind. No sane or rational person would. This is war. Ugly ugly war.
C
Walt,
You read far too many left wing blogs. Don’t believe everything you read. Come here and spend some time. There is no comoparison or resemblance to communism here.
You are dead wrong. Sorry, but once again, you don’t know what you are talking about if you are going to rely on left wing radical blogs for your information.
C
—————————-
Dear Chuck!
I dont read lefties blogs. I read righties news.
My brother in USA 30 year. He is still citizen. He is rightie. That dont makes to me problem. We love us.
He likes USA. I like USA. I dont think there is “resemblance to communism here.”
I am on the newsliste of GOP. See hier:
Dear Walter,
Welcome to the GOP Team! Through GOP.com, we’ll connect you with all the
tools you need to make a difference in Budapest and Alabama , including
opportunities to volunteer, spread our Party’s message, host events,
contact voters, and much more. We’ll be in touch shortly with updates
and action alerts.
Get started by visiting your personal Action Center.
For reference, your GOP.com login
information is below:
————————–
So believe me I become much more information from righties then from lefties. The difference between us I think, that I accept all informationen with critics, with “afterthinking”. And I make exact that what you say:
“Don’t believe everything you read”
Thanks Chuck, you are all right. Do you make so too?
I am not lefties, I am not righties. I dont make classifications of people. I dont want to have the life so semplicified ..:-)
————————–
I said only the logic that deffence is more important as human rights, i heared an readed in the time of communism. I can send to you an article of Népszabadság if you dont believe that.
And I dont make consekvences. After this information, you can, if you want.
—
Chuck one word describes you, Radical. Thats what you are. You believe in tortue. You believe that violence will get you the answer that you want. Just like us, you have no proof of anything that the government has said. You are the one who’s still believing everything that you’re reading. You are the one who’s not saying much. All your comments are the same. This is not a personal attack against you. Its just my observation. By the way Chuck, what ever happened to those weapons of mass destruction? They never existed, which only further cast a gray cloud over this administration. Thats not a lefty opinion, its a fact. Its time for you to start thinking outside the box. Climb out that rabbit hole and grab ahold on to reality.
Hi, Chuck:
You write: “Your argument that torture doesn’t work is right out of the democratic/moveon.org playbook.”
Does this mean that your broad brush generalization applies to military leadership? Because that’s what the leadership — and the research — says: torture someone and they’ll tell you what they think the torturers want to hear.
No where in this discussion have we talked about what happens to the humanity of the person placed in the position of power, the torturer.
Torture is not ethical. That’s why its use has been banned. It’s what supposedly separates democracies from totalitarian regimes.
The fact that we are even discussing this suggests to me that the terrorists “won” on 9-11: they have succeeded in undermining the basic values of this country.
The founders must all be rolling over in their graves.
:-/
Chuck, you write:
“The terrorist prisoner, Abu Zubaydah, did cough up valuable information so that just blows you entire argument out of the water. ”
a) We have only the word of unnamed sources that anything this person said was valuable. In contrast, we have the NAME of a terrorism expert who said this person was certifiable.
b) And even if there was valuable info presented, we have no way of knowing if that was before or after torture. There are at least three sources that suggest it was before.
Z,
Yeah, I’m a radical all right. Radically in love with the U.S. Radically willing to defend her with whatever it takes. Unlike some, who would roll over and cower to our enemies. Radically against surrendering to our enemies and radically opposed to the type of pacifism you and your ilk spew out of left wing blogs everyday. I’m a radical and proud of it.
Walt,
I have no idea what you just said?
USP,
I prefer to skeptically believe the government rather than believe your far far far far far farther left wing loonie blog buddies.
C
Hello Chuck!
Sorry for my bad english.
You said:
Calling the U.S. a communistic state is an insult and so over the top wrong I have to question your education?
My answer:
If I critised something that dont means I am against. Simile as if you critised your father that dont means you are against.
We are not enemies Chuck, we are talking partners.
In democracy difference in thinking, is total normal. Only in dictature must people to think the same.
I dont want that you “believe”.
You have more to choose then to “believe the government rather than believe your.”
I dont believe in Hungary without rethinking, neither “lefties” nor “righties”. Both sides muss me to convince. I am not a cheap voting-automate neither for “lefties” nor for “righties”. I am critical.
I will tell you what T am thinking.
We have the same purpose I am sure. Living in peace. Only how that to reach, that is what we dispute about.
You said: “Ugly ugly war.”
And You have right!
If the war ugly, it must be avoid.
Who have the task to avoid it, if it is possible?
I think the politicians an the power, egal lefties or righties.
————–
If are you up to this point the same oppinion, thank to you.
Then only one difference is between us. I think they dont are maked all, to resolve the problem without war. They dont told the truth, and wanted the “ugly ugly war”.
I am a little more critical then you that’s all. But I am critical when lefties are in power, too.
I think next:
In dictarure citizen (must) believe goverment, and goverment dont believe citizens. So goverment check citizens and citizens dont check the goverment.
in democracy citizens dont believe goverment, and goverment (must) believe citizens. So goverment dont check citizens and citizens check the goverment.
I know this is a little simplifyed, but you will understand what I mean!
Thanks Chuck!
Walt,
Radical Islam declared war on the western world but mostly the U.S. We’re simply defending ouselves with all the power we have. Radical Islam attacked the U.S. on 9/11 without provocation. The attackers lived mostly in Afghanistan and were sheltered by a corrupt government. I know of no other way to root out the virus but to dismantle and rebuild Afghanistan.
I ask you again, ARE YOU A PACIFIST? And, are you a pacifist personally or, do you believe in pacifism as a government policy?
C
Chuck, you said you love the U.S. then surely it must hurt you in some way to see it shatter to pieces behind lies, secrets and cover-ups. Defend her from what Chuck? Any enemies we have, we created. I love my country the same as you, but i will not stand by and watch them wrong others and that’s exactly what’s going on. Its like Walt mentioned, loving something doesnt mean supporting it when it’s wrong. Loving your country the way you say you do, you should want to see it being ran efficiently? Wouldnt you want to be proud of your country for doing what was right? Torturing ppl, destroying evidence, covering up, lying, having secrets; those are not things to be proud of. It makes me hide my head in shame. A country as big as ours…the land of the free…to see it being apart of one big scandal, it’s embarrassing. There’s nothing wrong with having Patriotism, but Chuck you should use it for good.
Hello Chuck!
Thanks for answering!
You dont have talked about Irak war, only about Afganistan.
That means for me one step forwards.
I said I dont belive without rethinking. But I have rethinked and I believe goverment.
I said to you, I become the informations not from others then from the news of goverments.
And the goverment news said : There was not relations between Saddam and Al Kaida.
And now: I believe goverment after rethinking, you believe goverment without rethinking, and the result:
we both believe the goverment, that there was not relations between Saddam and Al Kaida.
from this news you must to see too, that the goverment has not the same error as seems you have. For goverment are not all islamist the same, and for goverment are not all islamist radical.
If you believe goverment, then you must that accept.
————————
And the goverment news said too : There was not weapons of mass destruction.
And now: I believe goverment after rethinking, you beleve goverment without rethinking, and the result:
we both believe the goverment, that there was not weapons.
If you believe goverment, then you must that accept.
———————-
We spoked about, that war is ugly and must be only enabled if are gived good reasons for.
———
From goverment news – if we believe gowerment and we believe – of course as usual, I after rethinking, you without rethinking – we can see – that the reasons for the war was not good wellfounded.
And if the reasons was not wellfounded, the war is an error – a semplice deduction from news of goverment!
And for this deduction we dont need to read others, as news of goverment!!! Not lefties, not other news!!
———-
Your other ask:
If the war is wellfounded it must be. If not then not. My decisions hang from the facts and not from whatever classifications. Therefore I can not myself to classify, this task, to classify me, I cede to you.
By!
Z,
Lies, coverups and secrets have been around as long as there’s been politics. Every administration has it’s share. To pretend this is the first time is simply not true.
Once again Z you show your ignorance. I ask you to think for yourself and stop reading and believing these left wing hate America websites. Obviously you hate the U.S. That’s an undeniable fact.
“Any enemies we have, we created.”
Right out of the left wing loony websites. Can’t you think for one minute without falling back on these crazy slogans?
We did not create the Taliban. We did not create Al Qaeda. Get a grip dude! Stop believing such nonsense. These are religious zealots who want to kill or convert anyone who isn’t a Muslim. We did not make them that way, religious nuts like this have also been around since creation.
America is a noble country and sometimes we make mistakes. But in the grand scheme of the world, we have by far done more to free the world of evil and injustice. No one comes close. And we’re still the leader.
C
Walt,
I just can’t understand you Walt??? I mean, I just don’t comprehend your English writing.
Apparently you want to switch this discussion to Iraq. I’m not interested in changing the thread in that direction. I wasn’t for the war in the beginning but now we have no other choice but to try and win the war. If it would have been up to me we never would have gone in to Iraq but we did and now we own it since we broke it. Can’t leave till we stabilize the country. Hope that answers your questions if that’s what you were posting?
C
Hello chuck!
you said!
I just don’t comprehend your English writing.
my answer:
No problem. If we will change briefs still one year or two, I promise you, it will be better.
you said:
Apparently you want to switch this discussion to Iraq.
my answer:
It is an important theme in USA, is it not?
you said:
I’m not interested in changing the thread in that direction.
my answer:
I dont wonder. It is a very unpleasant theme.
you said:
I wasn’t for the war in the beginning ….
If it would have been up to me we never would have gone in to Iraq …
my answer:
If it is true, yo are not radical… You are a hidden leftie
or better to say, more realist as you showed yourself.
————
Otherwise the sentence “Any enemies we have, we created.” is really too hard to say.
But, if I good remember what have readed from goverment news, Bin Laden was trained as terrorist from USA against sowjet invasion in Afganistan. Consequently he was earlier an ally of USA. Saddam was ally of USA too, in the war between Irak and Iran. It seems that all enemies of USA today , was ally of USA earlier.
It is like a bad marriage, dont think you?
It is a luck for bushmans in Africa, that they was not USA’s ally yet.
(it is a joke, dont be angry)
Way to go Walt!! lol Exactly what i meant by whatever enemy we have we created. Chuck, you understand full well what Walt is saying, but you will never admit it. Regardless of any past lies and cover ups, NONE has created the mess we are in now. We are in the middle of an unjust war. A War created off LIES and HALF-TRUTHS. That’s where the concern is. Afganistan is where bin laden is from…but we went after Iraq…Why? Saddam was overthrown and supposedly hanged…bin laden still on the run. They mention Al Qaeda in my opinion only to say to us…”Hey we havent forgotten”. You can say what you will Chuck, but this is the worst Administration in all of MY yrs…and im sure many more. Things are terribly bad right now. We have soldiers dying everyday over a lie. And you still want to uphold this Administration? Your entire way of thinking has been warped. You are bitter for whatever reason. Majority of the ppl that are being captured and that are dying over seas, has had nothing to do with the Taliban and Al Qaeda or anybody else. They are hard working ppl just like us. We had no right to go over there and turn their world upside down and inside out. And now to half way justify what they’ve done, they lie and cover up. They capture so called terrorists and do whatever to them and get rid of any evidence of wrong doing. I say again, if they did nothing wrong Chuck, then your precious administration would have all the documents to show for it. They are all full of scandals. Im thankful that you have no say-so with any of the situations, because im sure you would be relentless to get so called information. A word of wisdom to you and your administration Chuck, You cant get blood from a turnip, even if you do beat it to death.
Z,
When you are losing an argument you resort to personal attacks. You also try to change the subject. I ask you, please provide your information that “Any enemies we have, we created.”
Iraq is a story for another day. Please document your assertion that 9/11 was brought on by our own actions? Isn’t that what you mean when you say “Any enemies we have, we created.”
Walt and I have a civil discussion going on and I’d appreciate it if you mind your own business. Don’t worry about your neighbor, take care of your own silly assertions.
C
Lmao Chuck you are a funny character. First of all, you attacked me first…remember…you called me ignorant…Second of all, how can you and Walt be having a civil discussion when you’re always claiming that you cant understand anything Walt is saying. Dont get mad Chuck. Thats very immature. This is a Public Forum…I have control over my internet connection and keyboard…you cant stop me from responding to you. If you remember correctly, you responded to me first Chuck. Cant stand the heat…get out the kitchen. Thank you.
oh and another thing Chucky, Ive never lost an argumenent, I stand by all ive said. Enjoy the circle while you’re in it.
You’re tap dancing Z? Answer the question or maybe you can get RT to answer it for you since he’s the only liberal on this board to step up and answer a question with a direct answer.
You lost the argument long ago Z. You can continue to assert your silly slogans but you have no facts and facts are the enemy of lies.
Come back again some other day when you have something substantial to offer. But for now, for you, ignorance is bliss and you must be the happiest guy in town.
C
Dear Chuck and Z!
I think we have reached somethings mutual understanding in our wiews.
we can say now that we need from goverment more diplomacy and to be less pugnatious.
(It is not too difficult to declare, this is valid for all goverments on the world)
If we ask from the goverment more tact and less fight, than we in person too, can not swerve from our own rule.
I want not to be obstinate, but let me to show a semplice technic to have a debate without to offend our partner in conversation.
We must semplice avoid use of adjectives (as possible) and substitute with verbs.
what I mean:
we can say ” you are leftie, rightie, redical, pacifist ecc”", but those qualifications are not real grounds and argumentations for dispute. And makes others in discussion angry. And we want a diskussion, and not to offend others, is it not?
It is more better to add a verb, so, for example:
You are leftie because you dont believe goverment.
or
you are rightie because you believe goverment.
Making so, we already have a ground for dispute, namely, why you believe or dont believe the goverment.
This way makes others in discussion less angry.
And now if we have a theme for dispute, the adjectives are total sufficient.
So is the best way to say:
You dont believe goverment. Why please?
or
You believe goverment. Why please?
Making so, the others in discussion arent angry.
I dont say that you must accept this technic, I just ask you to try, to make a test.
Thanks for reading my fiends, Z and Chuck!
It is an error in
And now if we have a theme for dispute, the adjectives are total sufficient.
I want to say:
And now if we have a theme for dispute, the adjectives are total unnecessary.
Sorry! sorry!
Oh, Walter .. I love you! I’ve been shouting to the rooftops for-ever: “provide evidence for your claims” and “don’t attack people in your posts.” LOL! It’s great to meet a kindred spirit who understands rhetoric and argument.
Hi, Chuck — please restrict your comments to the issues and stop with the pokes at other posters.
Re your comment “ignorance is bliss” — it certainly is. For example, you continue to issue that this issue is a partisan one, between “lefties” and “righties.” However, I presented *facts* that refute the assertion.
Here’s another: John McCain (clearly not a “lefty”) does not believe that the “ends justify the means” and neither do many of our generals. Read this piece from Stars and Stripes by Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar (retired) was commander in chief of U.S. Central Command from 1991 to 1994. Gen. David M. Maddox (retired) was commander in chief of U.S. Army Europe from 1992 to 1994.
Thanks Kathy i feel very honoured.
I dont know if I can propose a theme, bat it is something what me concern, since when I heared from Blackwater.
The third reason for the Irak war- in addition to weapons of mass destruction and link to Al kaida – was the fakt that Saddam ist dictator. This is true, Saddam was dictator.
And the US goverment decided to teach irakis, what is democraty.
And hier is my problem.
Who is a dictator?
Someone who is above law, he is intact.
And irakis loosed their intact dictator. That is good!
But if I good unterstood, they become more as 30000 intact privat persons an neck, so much is the personal of private security firms, all above law and intact.
I dont understand how will the irakis to learn what is democracy, and that in the democracy no person above law, if they see day-to-day the akcions of security firms where are civilian deaths too, and no investigations, no accountability.
In USA something simile should be a scandal.
This is not a good way to “export” the democracy! The irakis see from democracy nothing.
Thanks Kathy.
Kathy and Walt, I do apologize for allowing myself to step out of my character during the discussion. I must admit that I did get alittle irritated by the conversation. But just like alot of things in life, you must step back and re-approach the situation. I do however, agree with you Walt and what you are saying. You make valid points and you ask questions. I am an American citizen and even I dont understand why things are the way they are. I do hope to gain some type of educational information from all of this. Thanks Kathy for allowing us to speak our minds and opinions.
thanks to everyone for conversation. walt, i don’t think it’s possible to “impose” democracy – post WWII japan is an anomaly, for example.
and z, no apology needed! i’m truly not certain that anyone knows why things are they way that they are. :-/
Dear Kathy
“don’t think it’s possible to “impose” democracy”
I think so too!
“post WWII japan is an anomaly, for example”
I think I know where is the difference.
In WWII Japan and Germany were the agressor, who began the war, and now who began the war?
——————-
Dear Z.
You are OK.
Kathy said : and “don’t attack people in your posts.”
Let me to add: And dont respond an attack in your posts.
In Hungary saying:
If a girl say no that means maybe.
If a girl say maybe that means yes.
And a real girl never say yes.
and opposite
if a politician say yes that means maybe.
if a politician say maybe that means no.
and a real politician never say no.
It needs a little more tactic in conversation, that is all.
——————
Dear chuck!
You are for me ok too!
And you are right when you say “Walt and I have a civil discussion”
Yes we have, and I say thank to you for that.
The biggest problem is, if the parts of different oppinions, dont do conversations.
You do that, and so you give a possibility for dispute.
And that is the begin for all.
thanks.