President Bush's Speech

[JohnP]

Heard on the news this morning they may have crafted a bill that is acceptable to most and still allows questioning the people we need to question. If so, this is good news.
John P.

 

[Joe Lerch]

Joe, actually, they are. The treatment of the last terrorist leader is public knowledge; he was put in a room just cold enough to be uncomfortable, in which RedHotChiliPeppers' music was played nonstop.

Although I would feel like I'm being tortured, that's not what we're talking about. It's a bunch of political rhetoric on both sides. Let's wait and see what actually was done.

I just have a problem with people re-defining standard interrogation tactics as torture.

And I have a problem with redefing torture as standard techniqurs. et's see fi things which have been considered torture until now will suddenly be OK. We're all against torture if we can define away the torture we wish to carry out.

I have a hard time understanding why people think we would make standard practice something we would not condone out of uniform. Especially considering HONOR is something grilled into a recruit from the very first day.

I know that, but somewhere along the line, outside operatives came into the picture, and some decent officers looked the other way. I'm afraid that punishing just a few low level people smacks of a cover up. What has come into style is leading in a way that preserves deniability, something the mafia is very good at. Similar tactics are not employed in different locations without some officers knowing about it.

It is my personal belief that people in the administration hate the military so much that they want to flush us down the proverbial toilet, and will say anything to do so, if only to embarrass the administration. The Bush administration does not support us, and neither do the democrats. Bush lets the Marine Corps call its own "murderers" because they were doing their job, taking the word of the enemy...and then Kennedy calls us torturers. While I probably don't have ALL the facts from the previous situation, it sounds pretty far fetched to me....and calling our guys torturers most certainly is. If Sen.Kennedy (or anyone else) is so convinced that some of us are TRULY torturing people, then instead of humiliating our country on live television, why not simply level charges?

Both parties are guilty of this and it burns me. But just remember that the dems can't do anything the reps don't want. Many times they can't even get things out of committee. It's a result of the corruption of our system. Every branch of government now does what the president wants, and only his party has control over it. So, as much as I'm against all incumbents (unless they've done something to oppose this kind of government), my target is now on Reps. They need to be swept out of power if only to restore some control over the executive. This is not an issue of Republican or Democrat, both should want to preserve our system, and neither should be willing to send our troops into battle wthout the best equipment. Only the neocons would do that, and in my view it borders on treason. Every elected official swears to protect and defend the Constitution, not his party They have all violated that oath. An all powerful political party is the one common sign of all forms of totalitarianism.

His harangues are getting us killed; although I guess getting Americans killed is something he's been good at since before I was born. Instead of trying us and then executing us by proxy with an IED or enemy bullet, put some faith in the legal system he is supposedly part of.

WHose actions have resulted in the killing of more Americans than the administration?

Joe, unless I've misunderstood something, the charges are not to be kept secret from the accused, nor is the evidence, with the exception perhaps of names of informants (for their protection). My understanding was that these were not to be published ELSEWHERE, at least the evidence, for national security reasons-how did we catch them, for instance, and who we have. It is their families' business, and perhaps the red cross, but it is no business of their buddies in Al Qaeda who we have. Still, If it is as you say, which I doubt, but if it is, I also disagree with that policy.

That's not what Graham (a high level militery judge) was complainng about. The plans were to convict people on secret evidence, because it was classified. Now, the compromise says the jury will not see anything the accused doesn't see, which is normal militery ans civilian practice. No sooner does this happen that an administration spokesman starts sounding like they're holding out on this and may interpret it differently. Why shold that surprize us. Isn't that exactly what Bushes signing statements do with any laws he doesn't like. Effectively he's making that legislation what he wants it to be. That's inconstitutional. He can sign and enforce a law or he can veto, in which case he can be overidden. If he signs and makes the law what he wants, it's an endrun around the Constitution. It violates his oath. What's been done about it?

Joe, the kinds of pressure techniques are exactly what is called coerced interrogation; and it is EXACTLY what Sen. Kennedy and others (without any evidence so far to back it up) called torture last week. I have a problem with this. Nobody wants to think we are torturing people, but what kind of honest investigation can be run, or even fair trial, if the administration or the Senate is already pronouncing these men guilty? Might as well do away with the courts, because CNN, MSNBC and the US Senate are doing their jobs for them.

We need to see what the facts actually are, and I trust the reputable media (that excludes Foxnews) and press to do that. The press is another institution that's supposed to be a check on government. I'm not unhappy when they're a little antagonistic (against BOTH parties). It's their job, and they need to go back to that.

Many of our interrogators are British trained. They are experts at getting the information they want, reliable information. They are not stupid and know that under torture people will admit to anything. That is why I do not believe it happens. I can't speak for contractors, but I've seen nothing suggesting anyone in our armed forces is trained to do anything but good, simple police work when it comes to questioning these individuals.

This sounds as it should be, but we need to find out the facts.

I agree the administration likes power a bit too much, but to say torture is somehow a standard tactic in the U.S. military is ridiculous. EVERYTHING a service member learns is also in a book, somewhere. If they are being trained to TORTURE people as you say, at least if US servicemen are doing so, there will be a manual somewhere telling them in WRITING how to do it. The absence of such a manual is telling, (for crying out loud there are even manuals telling how to properly silence sentries all the way up to how to properly handle nuclear weapons...there IS a manual for it if they are doing it.) If someone is being tortured, I doubt it is being done at the hands of U.S. servicemembers, unless we are just going to continue to let alarmist senators and journalists redefine things as they wish. This redefinition for political gain is what I would like to be protected against; and if they want us to ask questions, they had better stop changing the rules mid game.

Nobody is saying torture is standard military procedure. In fact, I think everyone believes it's not. The current dispute is about changing things, and with the admnistration's record of corrupting everything they touch, there's a lot of concern, even among conservative Republicans (the prime movers).

Note that in reaching the compromise, they said tha the CIA has long had all the standards set out that they have used to define torture, and that's what will be used for the definitions. I would believe that such guidelines were set up to administer the Geneva Conventions, sort of like the tax codes sets out how the law will be administered. If that will be the outcome, I'm satisfied, and I think you will too. But the important point is that they haven't changed read that corrupted) anything.

I'm not entirely confident, but if things go forward according to the current compromise, the coerced interrogations they speak of will be no worse than what is done by law enforcement and other democratic countries, which is all I was hoping for. And senator Kennedy will shutup.

 

[JohnP]

Although I would feel like I'm being tortured, that's not what we're talking about. It's a bunch of political rhetoric on both sides. Let's wait and see what actually was done.

Joe, I agree there is a LOT of political rhetoric to wade through on both sides. No argument from me on this one.

And I have a problem with redefing torture as standard techniqurs. et's see fi things which have been considered torture until now will suddenly be OK. We're all against torture if we can define away the torture we wish to carry out.

Joe, while I feel you may be trying to make a nasty implication about me or my views here, you have a good point. However, I stand by my previous statements, especially with regards to this case. Either way, regardless of what you or I say constitutes torture, it should be defined clearly. How are we supposed to work with allies who often had to stick their neck out to side with us anyway, when our own officials are proclaiming on global news networks that we are torturing people with impunity.

I know that, but somewhere along the line, outside operatives came into the picture, and some decent officers looked the other way. I'm afraid that punishing just a few low level people smacks of a cover up. What has come into style is leading in a way that preserves deniability, something the mafia is very good at. Similar tactics are not employed in different locations without some officers knowing about it.

Joe, I'm sure you are referring to the issues at Abu Ghraib, and while I don't like the smell of all the officers being held guiltless, your statement implying similar tactics are employed at different locations is one I have not seen any foundation for. The officials screaming in outrage that our troops are guilty, and making huge sweeping blanket statements,( without even completing an investigation, let alone a trial-) are creating as much trouble for us overseas as were any of the personnel at Abu Ghraib. It might get you "camera time" to scream that we are torturing people routinely, but it does not make the statement true, nor does it do anything but endanger more American lives from those who originally were starting to realize we aren't that bad of a people as they might have thought.

Both parties are guilty of this and it burns me. But just remember that the dems can't do anything the reps don't want. Many times they can't even get things out of committee. It's a result of the corruption of our system. Every branch of government now does what the president wants, and only his party has control over it. So, as much as I'm against all incumbents (unless they've done something to oppose this kind of government), my target is now on Reps. They need to be swept out of power if only to restore some control over the executive. This is not an issue of Republican or Democrat, both should want to preserve our system, and neither should be willing to send our troops into battle wthout the best equipment. Only the neocons would do that, and in my view it borders on treason. Every elected official swears to protect and defend the Constitution, not his party They have all violated that oath. An all powerful political party is the one common sign of all forms of totalitarianism.

Joe, as I said before, there is no such thing in my mind as democrats or republicans. Only politicians, motivated by their own reasons. The democrats are doing everything they can to flush this country down the toilet while the republicans are in control, so they can point their fingers during the election. Shame on them. In turn, the Republicans are betraying the people who were tired of the democrats when they were voted in. They are trying their best to do anything they can to get votes, and by "sucking up" to the democrat vote they have alienated the very people who put them in office. The democrats will not win the next election, because they have become controlled by harping extremists, and to be honest, while there are tie ins, this is not the 1960's and none of us voters not FROM the 1960s want to hear it. If they had a level-headed person who wasn't OBVIOUSLY motivated by personal gain and could reason for longer than a 10 second sound-bite, or if they got rid of the shrill extremists, they would TROUNCE the republicans come election time. Either party would.
Joe, to be honest I don't think there is much difference between the parties with regards to what they DO. What they SAY might be different, but actions are louder. I think the last 3 presidents have been globalists, and that is what I would like to see ended. I would prefer to have a president and administration who thought of themselves as Americans first, not as some vague "world citizen" like Clinton and both Bushes seem to. It seems those who are more patriotic for their own country tend to take better care of it and its interests. Globalists could care less if the world hates America, it fits better into their plan. That's just my opinion, of course.

WHose actions have resulted in the killing of more Americans than the administration?

Joe, the administration did not kill those people any more than you or I did. America wanted blood, and the administration gave it to them. At the beginning of the war we were not told it was a war against "Al Qaeda" or "to get Bin Laden", no, we were told it would continue so long as countries were willing to support open terror, and so long as open terror was rampant. The fact that in a war lasting so long we have lost so few is telling. Of course, the networks need a story, and if one guy dies in Anbar, or if a truck full of troops gets blown up, the networks are all over it like vultures. More people died in D-day in one day, or Gettysburg-(one battle) than we have lost in this entire war. So far we have paid an extremely low price in this regard. I see a difference in fighting those who are my enemy anyway(such are the facts of life in war) and fighting those who are only fighting because they believe I do horrible things, thanks to members of my own government and their ever important need to be saying something shocking to stay on the news.

That's not what Graham (a high level militery judge) was complainng about. The plans were to convict people on secret evidence, because it was classified. Now, the compromise says the jury will not see anything the accused doesn't see, which is normal militery ans civilian practice. No sooner does this happen that an administration spokesman starts sounding like they're holding out on this and may interpret it differently. Why shold that surprize us. Isn't that exactly what Bushes signing statements do with any laws he doesn't like. Effectively he's making that legislation what he wants it to be. That's inconstitutional. He can sign and enforce a law or he can veto, in which case he can be overidden. If he signs and makes the law what he wants, it's an endrun around the Constitution. It violates his oath. What's been done about it?

That's just my opinion, of course.We need to see what the facts actually are, and I trust the reputable media (that excludes Foxnews) and press to do that. The press is another institution that's supposed to be a check on government. I'm not unhappy when they're a little antagonistic (against BOTH parties). It's their job, and they need to go back to that.

Joe, just because you disagree with FOX news does not make them any less reputable than CNN ABC CBS MSNBC or whoever. They all report to someone, and they are ALL biased. If you think they are not, or if you think FOX is somehow less reputable because they disagree with your opinions, you may want to do some more homework. To be honest, NONE of them have been very good about showing FACTS, and instead there is a lot of speculation and one-sided ness. To be honest Joe, and it is a sad commentary about our news networks, but if you want the REAL truth, you probably need to GO there. Stay for a month or two, (that should be enough) and it will open your eyes. You still may not agree with me, but I guarantee your perspective would be different, and you would disagree with a LOT of the stuff you see on the news, even from the ones you currently trust. Maybe they don't LIE per se, but they surely know who signs their paychecks. Unlike a witness in a courtroom who supposedly has to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth...our media makes no such claims; often all we get is a mix of "the truth, and a LOT of the everything but the truth" and none of the WHOLE truth that would let us make more unbiased decisions.

This sounds as it should be, but we need to find out the facts.

I agree.

Nobody is saying torture is standard military procedure. In fact, I think everyone believes it's not. The current dispute is about changing things, and with the admnistration's record of corrupting everything they touch, there's a lot of concern, even among conservative Republicans (the prime movers).

Joe I understand the concern about the corruption of things, but consider that any bill would have to go through both the house AND the senate to be approved. So right now what I think is happening is political grandstanding at the expense of those of us in uniform. If our senators are going to say we are torturers, I like the idea of having something to fall back on, so we can defend ourselves with the law if we have done nothing wrong. Of course, it also gives the government a tool to use in prosecuting people as well. If people are going to be held accountable for something, there needs to be something in writing defining what they are being held accountable for.

Note that in reaching the compromise, they said tha the CIA has long had all the standards set out that they have used to define torture, and that's what will be used for the definitions. I would believe that such guidelines were set up to administer the Geneva Conventions, sort of like the tax codes sets out how the law will be administered. If that will be the outcome, I'm satisfied, and I think you will too. But the important point is that they haven't changed read that corrupted) anything.

Joe, as far as I know, the things the honorable Senator were referring to ARE allowed by the CIA definitions; that said, the second part of your statement is pretty much all I was hoping for as well. I do not ask that the conventions be taken away from, I just want something in writing explaining, EVERY TIME, how we are going to interpret them.

I'm not entirely confident, but if things go forward according to the current compromise, the coerced interrogations they speak of will be no worse than what is done by law enforcement and other democratic countries, which is all I was hoping for. And senator Kennedy will shutup.

Joe, we pretty much agree on this point, and to be honest, it was the main thing bothering me anyway.
Well have to go fly, see you guys later
John P.
EDIT: fixed quotes.

 

[Joe Lerch]

Heard on the news this morning they may have crafted a bill that is acceptable to most and still allows questioning the people we need to question. If so, this is good news.
John P.

the only issue was how they are to be questioned.

You seem to be very concerned about protecting and supporting the military. So am I, but none of what's going on is for that purpose.

It's interesting to note how the militery reacted to this. Let's looka t the experienced knowledgable people. Actually, there has been a backlash of the military against the attempt to change our torture rules. Five former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (including Powell, Sec. of State) prior to W came out against it, joined by dozens of other Generals, Admirals, intelligence officers and the entire JAG Corp. Plus, the FBI (who refuse to be present while interrogations are taking place because they are too gruesome) and the CIA who recently said they would NOT continue these illegal interrogations.

So, I go back to an earlier question: Why is this suddenly going on now? Two possibilities come to mind. First, the administration are trying to cover their guilty asses for what they have already done. Second, it's a pre-election diversion to keep all the deaths and other bad Iraq developments off the front page.

 

[JohnP]

Joe,
I don't think anyone wants to change the rules. So long as whatever bill comes through CLARIFIES the rules, I will be satisfied. I understand Sen. Kennedy and others are somewhat alarmist, and if it even SMELLS like someone is making a mistake he can blame on the opposition party, he will proclaim loudly that it is happening. Unfortunately I take issue with him making these statements about his countrymen without actually proving any of them are true. In Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere-people on the fence about fighting Americans see a senior American government official claiming US troops are torturing their people. So of course, to THEM, it must be true. Everything any of our politicians say on camera can have huge repercussions and I think perhaps some of them either do not care or are simply extremely irresponsible.
As to why this is going on now, it has a LOT to do with certain extremists making these blanket statements about US troops. That former senior brass is concerned is no surprise, however, I must say that REAL warriors IMHO are rare in the senior brass. Put a politician in a uniform, and you have the typical senior brass in the U.S. military. Case in point, Colin Powell. His claim to fame was herding the media and putting on brilliant presentations for the people at home. The real war fighter in that war, again, IMHO was Gen. Schwartzkopf. That old guy STOMPED Saddam's military, while Gen. Powell was the smooth talking guy that explained it to the media and the American public. Real warriors do not seem to last long in today's military, at least not at the top. Brass gets the most direct contact with the civilian leadership and the successful ones are more like the civilian leaders.....whereas I tend to think the warriors are a bit more abrasive and do not last well in that environment, which is why we don't hear much from Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf these days, and every other day we hear something from Colin Powell.
If as you say there are horrible things happening, then they should be stopped; but I still have to wonder about why anyone would disagree with a clarification of the definitions and rules of interrogations, especially when unfounded accusations are being proclaimed to the world.
John P.

 

[JohnP]

Joe,
It's looking more and more like we agree more than we thought. You seem to want to make sure something does not happen (like torture) and I want to make sure none of our own is wrongly accused of it when it does not happen. Neither of us supports torture and neither of us trust the administration. I believe it comes down to point of view, really. I want the clarification, because I feel if we don't have it our people will suffer for carrying out their jobs; and you seem to be simply hoping that any clarification does not actually CHANGE the rules. If my assumptions here are correct, it seems we don't actually disagree all that much as we may have thought.
John P.

 

[Joe Lerch]

I feel you may be trying to make a nasty implication about me or my views

I have no reson to.

your statement implying similar tactics are employed at different locations is one I have not seen any foundation for.

There were such reports at the time Abu Graib came into the public view.

The officials screaming in outrage that our troops are guilty, and making huge sweeping blanket statements,( without even completing an investigation, let alone a trial-) are creating as much trouble for us overseas as were any of the personnel at Abu Ghraib.

Although I detest this, I don't think it's creating real trouble except for those that are inclined to let those activities continue. These things wil be seen all over the world even if nobody in the US said anything. At least this way the world sees that we're not all war mongers and that there are people her who are opposed an outraged. Otherwise, the world would believe we approve of it, since we re-elected Bush. Don't discount this. I have a lot of international contacts who are outraged by what we do and view the opposition as evidence that we haven't all gone off the deep end.

The democrats are doing everything they can to flush this country down the toilet while the republicans are in control, so they can point their fingers during the election. You'll need to demonstarte to me hw you could do that when you have no participation in government. I don't know how old you are, but I've lived through administrations on both sides. Never has a party in control so shut out the opposition party. I think back to news reports where Sensenbrenner walked out on a debate and had microphones shut off to prevent further discussion. And then there's the time he wouldn't let the democrats have a meeting room for one of the committees and they had to meet in the basement. I think bac to a senate move where the Dems had to bring a surprise motion to gain debate on an issue. Even as recently as Clinton Republicans participated in the cabinet. And there was never a time when the minority was so shut out or treated so rudely, certaiinly not during the previous years when the Dems had the majority. No, the Republicans are responsible for the mess and they'll have to take the fall, and they deserve it. If you can think of any way Dems could have prevented anything that's happened, explain.

Republicans are betraying the people who were tired of the democrats when they were voted in. They are trying their best to do anything they can to get votes, and by "sucking up" to the democrat vote they have alienated the very people who put them in office.

Their has been total betrayal of everyone ecept the super corporations and th ultra-rich. That's why conservative values don't matter, democratic principals don't, they don't really care about our troops, and anything goes. Things like the handling of Katarina and Iraq just prove it. and people are finally coming to that realization. If they don't scare the voters with the new wave of terrorist fearmongering, they will all be swept out, Congressional oversight will be restored, and then we'll find out the truth. If anything, they're veering away from any issues that would appeal to Dems, and they're jus try ing to avoid losing real conservative support. True conservatism cannot return until the neocon disease is swept out.

I would prefer to have a president and administration who thought of themselves as Americans first, not as some vague "world citizen" like Clinton and both Bushes seem to. It seems those who are more patriotic for their own country tend to take better care of it and its interests. Globalists could care less if the world hates America, it fits better into their plan.

Globalism is necessary for our survival, but our creed must not be sacraficed. Nobody hates America more than the current administration. Nobody has hates or has damaged the Constitution more; nobody hates the people more or done more to destroy the middle class in favor of super rich, moving towards a society with super rich and evryone one else in an underclass; nobody hates the two partys system more, moving us toward an all powerful one party system like every totalitarian government. Think about what the ideal America would be for the current administration. It doesn't resemble any democracy I know of. Once we sweep these guys out and get things working, we can work on the rest of the incumbents and really clean house.

Joe, the administration did not kill those people any more than you or I did. America wanted blood, and the administration gave it to them. At the beginning of the war we were not told it was a war against "Al Qaeda" or "to get Bin Laden", no, we were told it would continue so long as countries were willing to support open terror, and so long as open terror was rampant. The fact that in a war lasting so long we have lost so few is telling. Of course, the networks need a story, and if one guy dies in Anbar, or if a truck full of troops gets blown up, the networks are all over it like vultures. More people died in D-day in one day, or Gettysburg-(one battle) than we have lost in this entire war. So far we have paid an extremely low price in this regard. I see a difference in fighting those who are my enemy anyway(such are the facts of life in war) and fighting those who are only fighting because they believe I do horrible things, thanks to members of my own government and their ever important need to be saying something shocking to stay on the news.

You're good at denial. We were lied into war on cooked intelligence. I'll bet we find this out as soon as there's some oversight. We go on fighting Iran's cause and building up their regional power and influence

That's not what Lindsy Graham (a high level military judge) was complainng about. The plans were to convict people on secret evidence, because it was classified. Now, the compromise says the jury will not see anything the accused doesn't see, which is normal militery ans civilian practice. No sooner does this happen that an administration spokesman starts sounding like they're holding out on this and may interpret it differently. Why shold that surprize us. Isn't that exactly what Bushes signing statements do with any laws he doesn't like. Effectively he's making that legislation what he wants it to be. That's unconstitutional. He can sign and enforce a law or he can veto, in which case he can be overidden. If he signs and makes the law what he wants, it's an endrun around the Constitution. It violates his oath. What's been done about it?

That's just my opinion, of course.We need to see what the facts actually are, and I trust the reputable media (that excludes Foxnews) and press to do that. The press is another institution that's supposed to be a check on government. I'm not unhappy when they're a little antagonistic (against BOTH parties). It's their job, and they need to go back to that.

Joe, just because you disagree with FOX news does not make them any less reputable than CNN ABC CBS MSNBC or whoever.

if you want the REAL truth, you probably need to GO there. Stay for a month or two

Fox is useless. There was a study a few years ago (I think it was U Penn). The upshot is they tested how well informed the viewers of various news services were. Fox news only vieweres were theworst informed, and the more they wwatched, the less informed they were. If that's your only source of news, think about it. Print media is still the best. And I don't judge it by how thorough ans accurately they report. Read the news pages not the editorials and you'l get accurate news. They may make mistakes, but they don't lie. If you want conservative media try the Wall Street Journal or the Orlando Sentinel etc. It's almosy comical when there's a news development and I listen to CNN and MSNBC how the same nesw gets reported by Fox. There's always a spin (on news!). The you read the paper, and it's not what Fox said, and neither is the BBC. I guess you think they're the only ones that get it right! If you're interested in the study I should be able to find a site for you. If Fox is your source, there's nothing I can do. There isn't an international news conspiracy unless you're watching Fox. Don't believe me, but just pay attention and see if you can tell when news stops and editorializing starts. They mix it up!

And don't think you know so much because you were there. You were in a military zone and you saw what they wanted. If you were really among the people you'd be dead.
I agree.

Joe I understand the concern about the corruption of things, but consider that any bill would have to go through both the house AND the senate to be approved.

And who controls them? Or should I say who do they rubber stamp? If you think those scoundrels are the friend of the military, you're in trouble. They were the ones who let the administration send you into battle without proper gear. Did you hear an outcry? Not from them. Did they even investigate?

Joe, as far as I know, the things the honorable Senator were referring to ARE allowed by the CIA definitions;

Absolutely not! he's a JAG. He wouldn't be outraged by nothing. The idea of secret evidence is what incensed him.

 

[Joe Lerch]

Joe,
It's looking more and more like we agree more than we thought. You seem to want to make sure something does not happen (like torture) and I want to make sure none of our own is wrongly accused of it when it does not happen. Neither of us supports torture and neither of us trust the administration. I believe it comes down to point of view, really. I want the clarification, because I feel if we don't have it our people will suffer for carrying out their jobs; and you seem to be simply hoping that any clarification does not actually CHANGE the rules. If my assumptions here are correct, it seems we don't actually disagree all that much as we may have thought.
John P.

We don't. I wouldn't want our guys put in that position. Just because your government says it's OK to do something doesn't make it OK if it's clearly torture. The Nuremberg trials made it clear that the military will not be protected if they follow the outrageous orders of an abusive government. As much as I mistrust the government, I trust the people. My hope is that enough of us will see the truth to set things straight in this next election. Remember what Lincoln said about fooling all of the people all of the time?

 

[JohnP]

We don't. I wouldn't want our guys put in that position. Just because your government says it's OK to do something doesn't make it OK if it's clearly torture. The Nuremberg trials made it clear that the military will not be protected if they follow the outrageous orders of an abusive government. As much as I mistrust the government, I trust the people. My hope is that enough of us will see the truth to set things straight in this next election. Remember what Lincoln said about fooling all of the people all of the time?

Joe, if you are saying I support torture because I want the rules clarified, I am wasting my time arguing my point with you. Your mind has been made up. That said, I trust the government no more than you do, however, I also don't like the fact that my countrymen can be convicted of something that doesn't even have a clear definition. If someone raises their voice during an interrogation, or if the music is annoying...perhaps there will be no prosecution, but if the definition is so vague that a senior U.S. Senator can claim based on this that we are torturing people, something is very very wrong.
John P.

 

[Joe Lerch]

Joe, if you are saying I support torture because I want the rules clarified, I am wasting my time arguing my point with you. Your mind has been made up. That said, I trust the government no more than you do, however, I also don't like the fact that my countrymen can be convicted of something that doesn't even have a clear definition. If someone raises their voice during an interrogation, or if the music is annoying...perhaps there will be no prosecution, but if the definition is so vague that a senior U.S. Senator can claim based on this that we are torturing people, something is very very wrong.
John P.

I don't know how you reached that conclusion from what I said. If I thought that about you, I wouldn't be participating either. My only point was that the government's definition wouldn't protect anyone if what they were doing was clearly wrong. The individual is ultimately responsible adn "I was just following orders" is not an excuse.

My undesratanding is that the Senate agreement was not to interpret the convention but to depend on the standards that the CIA had long established that were consistent with the convention. That suits me. However, I don't trust the administration to abide by it, so our interrigators will still be at risk.

I guess you noticed that we have hijacked this thread and nobody else is participating. Let's move it to PMs.

 

[JohnP]

Joe,
perhaps we simply misunderstood each other then, because I actually agree with your last post.
I have opinions about all sorts of things, feel free to PM me about any of them!
It's been a fun debate
John P.