Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>Has anything happened here on US soil in eight years? So it has to be somewhat effective.<<< What a crock! How much happened before 9/11 - Oklahoma was about it. Not bad for 200+ years of a free society.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Has anything happened here on US soil in eight years? So it has to be somewhat effective.*** The more I think about this, the more it makes no sense whatsoever. But if you really believe this, then please tell us all about the blatantly illegal torture programs in place under the administrations of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Adams II, Jackson, Van Buren, Harrison I, Tyler, Polk, Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, Lincoln, Johnson, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland, Harrison II, Cleveland, McKinley, Roosevelt I, Taft, Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Roosevelt II, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Obama. If you wouldn't mind. <---waits patiently fwiw, it's obvious that you get *this* particular talking point from the Bush/Cheney rhetoric which they've been touting, and it makes no sense when THEY say it either. They didn't keep us safe, they FAILED TO DO SO. On THIER watch, we suffered the ONLY mass casualty attack on America proper in the whole of U.S. history! And they're "proud" that they "kept us safe"? Screw them! They did nothing of the sort (PLUS they opened up an illegal torture program and 2 wars to boot! wars that would NOT have occurred if they'd thwarted the terrorists in the first place). So, like I said DAR, please explain how all those other Presidents managed to keep us safe using THEIR torture programs for 220+ years. This should make for an interesting read.
Originally Posted By Mr X Didn't see your post there, Dave. Great minds and all that (although you bring up a fair point, for the record I don't want it to seem as though Oklahoma didn't exist, it certainly was a horrific attack...those bloody Muslims are such scum, we should torture and kill them all!)
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Having lived in what was a terrorism target during the troubles of northern ireland, and seeing what resentment can do, torture and opprsession only strengthens the resolve and exacerbates the situtation. IMHO, Bush was one of the largest threats to American security in it's history. I remember prophesising his actions on the French news when I was interviewed on 9/12, and my predictions became true. Scary stuff.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 So DAR, if it really was effective, why have we not seen any attacks on U.S. soil?<< It takes months to plan those things....
Originally Posted By DAR X if you believe that the W administration was the first time we tortured people in this country you are sorely mistaken.
Originally Posted By DAR Let me clarify I'm not saying every administration partook but certainly during times of war I imagine some rather unpleasant actions too place on our behalf.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Well, not sure if it was officially sanctioned, but I know allied forces went on rape campaigns in occupied Germany post 45.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Let me clarify I'm not saying every administration partook but certainly during times of war I imagine some rather unpleasant actions too place on our behalf.*** I'm no idiot DAR and I have no doubt some of that stuff took place (perhaps even often). MY problem is with the blatant and prideful use of it in such a public fashion (of course, my desire is for it NOT to exist at all, but I'm realistic and I wouldn't doubt any assertions people in the know might come up with historically).
Originally Posted By mawnck >> How much happened before 9/11 - Oklahoma was about it.<< Not exactly. On July 30, 1916, German saboteurs blew up a munitions facility on Black Tom Island in New York Harbor, pelting Ellis Island, lower Manhattan and the Statue of Liberty with shrapnel for hours and killing an unknown number of people, although probably not that many since it was late at night. The Black Tom depot with its freight cars, warehouses, barges, tugboats and piers was completely destroyed, along with the entire supply of arms and goods intended for Europe. It was the biggest act of domestic terrorism until Oklahoma City. The Statue of Liberty suffered $100,000 in damage (1916 money) and the arm and torch were closed to the public from then on. <a href="http://www.njcu.edu/programs/jchistory/Pages/B_Pages/Black_Tom_Explosion.htm" target="_blank">http://www.njcu.edu/programs/j...sion.htm</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Tom_explosion" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...xplosion</a> <a href="http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/investigations/607_blacktomshell.html" target="_blank">http://www.pbs.org/opb/history...ell.html</a>
Originally Posted By hopemax > What a crock! How much happened before 9/11 - Oklahoma was about it. Not bad for 200+ years of a free society. < Although, not as deadly we did have the Olympic Park bombing. Which makes me wonder, if that had happened in a post 9/11 world what would have happened to Richard Jewell?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Which makes me wonder, if that had happened in a post 9/11 world what would have happened to Richard Jewell?<< Wow. A great, scary question. Maybe nothing. Or maybe indefinite detention without a trial, "enhanced interrogation," where he may have admitted to the crime to make the pain stop, etc.
Originally Posted By DAR Richard Jewell was an American citizen(didn't he pass away)who should have been afforded all rights that an American citizen has. Just as any soldier on the field of battle is afforded the rights as outlined by the Geneva Convention. Because these are not traditional soldiers, ie they don't belong to one country the rules of the Geneva Convention do not apply.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Because these are not traditional soldiers, ie they don't belong to one country the rules of the Geneva Convention do not apply.<< That sort of slippery rationale can turn around and bite us, however. What if these terrorists don't recognize the United States as a valid country because it's not a Muslim theocracy? Can they turn around and say, "Well these aren't real soldiers because they aren't from a real country?" Sorry DAR, you're "we're the good guys and they aren't" might be emotionally satisfying (and I happen to believe your right) but it's meaningless in the real world. Any country, any person, can use whatever "logic" they like to justify ignoring the Geneva Convention. But it doesn't make them right or morally superior. And that's what you're arguing: that our moral superiority entitles us to actions that others shouldn't be entitled to. Which is no different than saying Christians should be able to pray in school and compel national worship, but Muslims can't, because Christians are "morally superior." One person's morals is another's crime. Which is why we have to be consistent in our application of the Geneva Convention. If we truly are better than these people, then we certainly shouldn't sink to their level. You can get "dirty" all you like, but then you're still wallowing in the mud where the bad guys are, and it gets hard to distinguish us from them.
Originally Posted By hopemax It's a weird line to draw in the sand. The only thing that separates a person from humane and inhumane treatment is where he lives. Usually, it's because we can only control our own actions. We can't force some other government to treat human beings in a certain way. The Geneva convention is only one way to attempt to do so. But this is entirely under our control. So do we believe, as a country: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Or we don't. There are no qualifiers that only good, decent, law abiding men get life & liberty. There are no caveats that this only applies to the residents of the US. Or as Lincoln said, "If that Declaration is not the truth, let us get out the statute book, in which we find it and tear it out. Who is so bold as to do it? Let us stick to it then, let us stand firmly by it then." We shouldn't need a law or a statute or treaty to make us live by our own principles. We should want to do so willingly. We should want to go above and beyond to prove that our way really is different, it really is better. What is the point of "liberating" these oppressed societies if we say out of one side of our mouths you deserve free speech, religious expression, democratic elections, due process, etc. but out of the other side, "not you, not you, not you." We can't secure or guarantee these rights for everyone on the planet. But if we really believe in these things, when it's in our control, how can we deny them?
Originally Posted By mawnck Enemies of the state aren't humans. - Dick Cheney or Joseph Goebbels, I forget which
Originally Posted By DAR Post 154 is a well written thought out and intelligent argument....which I happen to disagree with.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Can you explain why with an equally well thought-out and intelligent argument?
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 They are called human rights for a reason.<< And when the American POW in Afghanistan is beheaded, we can whine and cry about how they didn't believe in human rights, but we are a better country for treating them better than they treat us. I am sure his family will sleep better at night knowing that.... Our enemy doesn't give a damn about us, yet we are supposed to be humane and treat them with love....
