Originally Posted By Mr X ***It's been awhile since I saw the movie, but if memory serves, the "truth" was that he felt that he shouldn't be questioned and second-guessed about how he went about "providing our blanket of freedom." That no one should question how he gets things done, that essentially, his role in protecting freedom was so important, that he was above the law.*** Wow...great summation K2M. Was the director clairvoyant on this one, or what!?
Originally Posted By barboy ///Target those red crosses on top of the field hospitals...ripe for the picking, no? Let's off all the kids and the women too on purpose, that'll shock the population but good and force a quick surrender, right? Why not just nuke every country that dares engage us (or, dares to piss us off enough to be engaged by us)? where would that leave things?/// Well, it would leave us victorious like in '45.
Originally Posted By barboy ///the "truth" was that he felt that he shouldn't be questioned and second-guessed about how he went about "providing our blanket of freedom." That no one should question how he gets things done, that essentially, his role in protecting freedom was so important, that he was above the law.***/// You're in the ballpark but I don't think you got it all the way. Col. Nathan Jessup's (Jack Nickolson) idea of 'truth' was that since Caffee(Tom Cruise) had a 'Harvard Mouth' and has never been in combat that Caffee, like just about everyone else, can not understand what it takes to keep 'America' safe. By the way, according to the movie Col. Jessup didn't really break a law/statute per se--- what he did was order a 'code red' after an Admiral advised against the practice by issuing a directive.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Minimum habeas rights as mandated in our own laws mean nothing but... well, minimum habeas rights. We convicted the Nazis (known killers, worse than these guys - literally millions dead) and we did it the right way, when few would have shed a tear if we'd hung most of them and thrown the rest in a dungeon to rot. But we insisted on doing it the right way, and won respect for it. We were looked up to as a higher example, rather than seen as just typical vengeance takers.>> There is a HUGE difference here that no one seems to recognize. When did we put the Nazi's on trial? Correct. AFTER we had defeated Germany and they were no longer a threat. I have no problem putting the Gitmo guys on trial and possibly releasing them. AFTER we have defeated radical Islam and it is no longer a threat. Until then keep them locked up in Gitmo.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Col. Nathan Jessup's (Jack Nickolson) idea of 'truth' was that since Caffee(Tom Cruise) had a 'Harvard Mouth' and has never been in combat that Caffee, like just about everyone else, can not understand what it takes to keep 'America' safe.<< Right. So, "don't you dare question me or how I go about my business" is the basic idea there. The next connect-the-dot in that line of reasoning is he is above the law, his role far too important to be subject to any second-guessing.
Originally Posted By barboy ///we should respect international norms and conventions regarding torture./// Why? Why do we have to please others? You 'globalists' keep bringing up statements like that one above but your warrants are faulty. You assume we have to abide by some international code of conduct. We don't.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Why do we have to please others?<< We should live up to our OWN ideals. Whether that pleases others or not is beside the point. That so many seem willing to ignore our usual high standards, all in the name of "security" is disappointing, but not without historic precedent, unfortunately.
Originally Posted By barboy //We should live up to our OWN ideals. Whether that pleases others or not is beside the point./// I'm totally cool with that but I don't think that is the prevailing attitude around here as I keep seeing posts pop up about UN this, Geneva Convention that or how will the international community see us.
Originally Posted By barboy ///That so many seem willing to ignore our usual high standards, all in the name of "security" is disappointing, but not without historic precedent, unfortunately./// 'disappointing' is not what comes to my mind--- I'm thinking downright 'frightening'.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <What I think is that every possible scenario in war is bad. There is nothing good or humane about any of it. Yet, we seem to be able to separate one area of endeavor from the other. If we send troupes to places and in the process many soldiers get killed or maimed, we say, that's awful but we are at war.> I understand what you're saying on one level, but those have been the rules of war for a long time. For instance, it's perfectly fine to kill Private Smith in the heat of battle. But if you take Private Smith prisoner, along with others, you can't kill them. Even though, let's say, had Private Smith been standing five feet to the left 20 minutes earlier and would have taken a bullet - he'd have been dead, and well within the rules of war - nonetheless, if you capture him, you can not kill him. On one level that may seem to make no sense, but that has been a rule of war we've agreed to for a long time. So are the Geneva conventions, of course.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <There is a HUGE difference here that no one seems to recognize. When did we put the Nazi's on trial? Correct. AFTER we had defeated Germany and they were no longer a threat.> Many people feared a resurgence of Naziism. That's whey we (and the Brits, and the French, and the Soviets) occupied Germany for years afterward; after the Nuremburg trials, by the way. What's a better message: that if you commit evil acts you will be brought to justice, using internationally recognized standards of justice; or if you (maybe) commit evil acts (we won't know for sure because we won't try you), you'll be tossed into a jail and possibly tortured, and not brought to justice until such time as we think your movement is no longer a threat, even though by doing it this way we just radicalize more people into joining your movement? <I have no problem putting the Gitmo guys on trial and possibly releasing them. AFTER we have defeated radical Islam and it is no longer a threat.> Oh, and when will that be? WWII was a declared war between actual countries. This "war on terror" is a "war" against a tactic. Terrorism is not an enemy, it's a way of doing things. It's been around at least since the Irish struggle against the British, and arguably long before that. (What else was the US cavalry giving the plains tribes blankets knowingly infected with smallpox, if not germ warfare/biological terrorism?) Moreover, if we captured all the Al Qaeda leaders tomorrow, terrorism would not go away. Unfortunately, the genie is out of the bottle, and it will be a tactic used by some people for the rest of time. Whoever quoted Orwell was right on the money. <Until then keep them locked up in Gitmo.> Without charge and without trial? Torturing when we "feel the need" to do so? Again, this isn't about them, it's about us.
Originally Posted By ecdc <<I have no problem putting the Gitmo guys on trial and possibly releasing them. AFTER we have defeated radical Islam and it is no longer a threat.>> This is a terrible sentiment. What if we'd had this attitude towards someone we suspected of being Viet Cong in 1966? "Hey, we'll let you out when we've defeated the North Vietnamese." Turns out that never happened, and if we had let them out when we left in 1975, that would've been nine years later. Of course, the people that scream the loudest about this are also the people that'd be screaming the loudest if it was them or one of their family members locked away for 6 months, or 6 years, until we "defeat" terrorism. We'd hear nonstop about the injustice, about what's wrong with the government for doing this, about how we can't trust anybody. We'd hear about how horrible the injustice is. Mercy for me, justice for everybody else seems to be the attitude. Of course, in Vietnam, we just invaded entire villages and slaughtered people because they "might" be VC. Perhaps we can do that and stop when we've defeated terrorism. What's one more dead innocent person, so long as we know we've "defeated" radical Islam.
Originally Posted By barboy //Again, this isn't about them, it's about us.// just empty political rhetoric which means nothing to me
Originally Posted By barboy ///AFTER we have defeated radical Islam/// --then I guess it would be a life sentence because those believers will never be wiped out There is no bomb nor working diplomatic policy which will put a stop to their ambitions.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<--then I guess it would be a life sentence because those believers will never be wiped out >> I do not think that is correct. Already in Iraq we are seeing a huge reduction in terrorist violence. Terrorism requires at least the tacit approval of the general population. When people come to the conclusion that the terrorism is doing them more harm than good, it begins to go away.
Originally Posted By barboy Oh the numbers of religious terrorists might well drop--- drop dramatically even but they will not be totally eradicated. And here is kicker...... the 'beauty' of terrorism is that a 5 person team poorly funded and poorly equipped, hell even a 1 person show, can put the hurting on thousands physically and millions psychologically. Remember back in fall of '02 around Maryland, DC and Virginia: 2 equipped with just a rifle, a tricked out car and a cause wreaked some serious havoc. And they weren't even that good at it. They could have done far, far more damage if they chose.
Originally Posted By barboy ///Terrorism requires at least the tacit approval of the general population./// How did I miss that the first time around? Well anyway you're flat out, 100% mistaken on that part of your post.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Whoever quoted Orwell was right on the money.*** That was me. Scary, ain't it? And far from the only parallel to be found, either, though perhaps the most scary and (to me anyway) obvious one.
