How do the good people of Batavia feel about the torture of U.S. soldiers by the Taliban? And just what is the difference between us torturing them and them torturing us? Just curious how the mind works.
George, its ok for them to torture our soldiers, but we're held to a higher standard. Thats the crap the opponets of torture will feed us. Hell, if it was up to me, once I got the information from them, it would be time for the firing squad,to hell with wasting tax dollars to house them, and waste tons more money fighting with the ACLU about their rights. You know, when prisoners try to escape, they get shot. A friend of mine who served in Nam told me of an NVA officer their unit was transporting and how the officer decided to go for a walk while he was 2500 feet off the ground in a huey. Hey, this is war, stuffs going to happen.
Yeah Howard,if I was running around Afganistan with known terrorist, and carrying an AK-47,that would be fine with me.
I don't beleive the CIA is going around kidnapping and torturing innocent civilians. Look at all the "innocent" people we have in our prison system,almost all of them,lol.
Frank, how do you know that some farmer didn't happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?
Whenever you steal the rights of another person, you're stealing them for yourself. You're providing the government with cover to do whatever the hell it pleases.
There's no moral justification for denying anybody their right to due process.
All people have rights. The Constitution merely codifies the limitation of our government's powers because we can't control what other governments do, but the Founders clearly believed that basic rights extended to all people.
The United States does harm to the principles of its Founders when it violates the rights of non-citizens.
"A friend of mine who served in Nam told me of an NVA officer their unit was transporting and how the officer decided to go for a walk while he was 2500 feet off the ground in a huey."
Damn, same thing happened to Pat Tillman without the huey. War is hell.
Frank, I have to disagree with you. We are held to a higher standard. We hold ourselves to it! We are one country under God and representative of Christians from our birth. I feel the varying religions should be able to live in peace and harmony together as we do here in the U.S. We are not terrorists and should hold ourselves in esteem, not act as barbarians.
Howard, would you please describe the type of torture that was used to gather information from Khalid Shaikh Mohammed that prevented specific terrorist attacks on innocent Americans and also led to the capture of wanted known terrorist.
While that is true Howard, my safety as a citizen trumps their right to not be bothered by our government.
If they want to legally immigrate here or become our ally and fight, then I wouldn't have an issue affording them the rights. I think its safe to say that our government does a good job of making sure they are not harassing those willing to help us.
But I do have a huge problem with capturing a U.S. Citizen on the battlefield and not affording him a military tribunal before treating him as a terrorist.
It seemed a bit more acceptable when we turned over terror suspects to other friendly governments that knowingly use torture and let them work their magic. It seems like the only unwise part of it was getting caught, which is no big deal to most because it was justified by the government explaining that it saved many American lives. I don't think that the Declaration of Independence has any provision for the type of War or evil that we are experiencing today. The biggest mistake is trying to fight a war and be humane while getting results. I don't think torture is right in any situation but then again I can't control any government including ours from torture. Take a look at our economic situation and how many Americans are going through financial torture. Good luck stopping it with your vote. Ask the people who are still suffering from hurricane Katrina how they feel about terrorism and torture by our government.
I cannot believe the results of this poll. I fear for my safety as a result of the people who would vote yes to this. Whether it be from backlash when traveling overseas as a result of this perceived American mindset, or from the individuals at home who are so willing to put another through unimaginable suffering to ease their paranoid illusion that a specific, potentially innocent captive, may or may not have information that is potentially putting their safety at risk.
Peter, your fear of your safety (citizen or not) does not trump anyone's right to not be tortured, especially when the word potentially or allegedly can be used in the description of the "suspect".
I wonder how many of you that are OK with these "methods" have either served in the military of with someone who was in a wartime sutuation.
I know that Peter was in, but I'm curious about the rest. It is very easy for anyone to sit here and say what is reasonable when you do not have to do the fighting. When the repercusions of your decisions are not felt. It is fair for you to think it is acceptable to do this because it "saves" lives. That is a warm blanket to cover up with.
I have seen these methods first hand. You have read about them. I have also had the experience of finding out information in other ways. Less intrusive and more tactical. Those are the things that save lives, not this.
Again, I have no love for people who will kill innocents for some grand God and his gifts. I just find it suspect when people who have no real knowledge of what it's like to be in these enviornments can tell me with all certainity what's best.
Just to clarify I am ok with water boarding and with what happened in Abu Graib. I'm not good with actual physical harm such as beating the bottoms of feet, electric shock, any many things much more violent.
Sleep deprivation and cold temperature exposure in a controlled environment don't bother me in the least. Loud music and the defacing of a so called holy book are ok with me too.
I guess here is my problem. It's really easy to come on here and say all of these hateful things, and yes they are hateful. It's easy to say what we should do, but the truth no one on here has ever had to get infornation this way.
This isn't a conversation if the enemy was right to do it. They're weren't, they're scum for doing it, but how are we then right to do it? John, do you know how many times did we actually procure real intelligence from these methods? Not nearly as much as using the "nice" way as you call it.
Using the "well they do it" line of defense is a joke. Not if your real interest is in saving lives. You tell me that these forms of interrogation are effective and I call bullshit. So unless you have actually been there and done that, it just sounds like a bunch of angry people to me.
Phil, I have never served in the military during wartime. I also have bad credit. It doesn't mean that my point of view would change or should be discounted either. Last I knew our Government is in debt too. We all know in War you can't count any opponent to follow our rules. Geneva convention only works when other governments agree with it. Even with that in mind everyone knows that our country is a push over. War was not made to be nice unless you play it with a deck of cards. I still feel that torture is wrong.
If you really want to know what we're up against when dealing with the fanatical Muslim World I'd suggest reading some of Christopher Hitchens essays or this interview that Michael Totten had with Jonathan Spyer.
Phil, I was typing while you posted your second comment. I just wanted to stick in that credit thing from an earlier post (teehee). I feel like you are trying to say that the people who think torture is acceptable are the ones who never have served while in war or known someone who has? I can bet if they did then they won't change their minds because they want pay back.
War is a dirty, filthy, and life taking action period. When we developed and dropped those two bombs on Japan it was supposed to be GAME OVER for future war against us. You could even say we killed civilians for the greater good. They (Japan) were masters at torture. I knew an ex POW. I guess I should leave it all up to history. If you study past wars against anything the take no prisoners type of philosophy seems the most beneficial.
This discusion reminds me of the movie Unthinkable. It's a good movie that gets you to think about just how far torture should go and if it would be worth it in the end.
What I am saying is that I have actually seen (and done) up close to both ways, and by far the less physical ways netted more results that actually amounted to something.
My biggest complaint is that those who call for torture, or ignore it (one in the same to me) as a form of making us secure have never seen it up close. They read reports about it, or listen to Radio guys like Limbaugh, but have never been apart of it to actually know. There is a reason why so many in the intelligence community don't use these techniques.
Regardless, Wars are horrible and they are pointless. You're right too, Gabor about all that you said to describe it. I don't disagree, but what I am saying is that if we are going to use this as a means to protect us, it's not effective.
If people feel we should do it just because they do it to us, then that's just anger to me and I don't agree. Believe me I'm mad. I lost people in 9/11, watched friends come back from Iraq different or not at all. I want these bastards to just disappear too, but I want it done right.
Phil, I think anybody who advocates torture should really sit and think about whether they would want it done to them, or their children.
It's all find an good to say "they're the enemy," or "they were caught with an AK47" or "they hung out with terrorists," etc.
Without due process, how do we know that's true? Without due process, how do you know you've got the right person?
Something like half of the Gitmo "terrorists" have had their cases thrown out because the evidence against them is tainted by torture.
Once you grant due process, now you're in a legal system that has punishments for the guilty. One of our traditions, one of the traditions that made America great, is that we consider "cruel and unusual punishment" to be immoral.
I don't see how any flag-waving American can condone torture or anything that violates the rights of others. There's no justification for it. Ever. Under any circumstances.
Jeremiah, how much you want to bet that Daniel Pearl would insist on due process for anybody accused of participating in his murder?
Let me put it this way: If I ever come to a tragic end at the hands of another person, I INSIST that anybody accused of the crime receive full due process of the law and an aggressive, competent defense. I want the right person punished, not just any person.
And as I said before, the fact that the other guy doesn't follow our values doesn't let us off the hook in our obligation to stay true.
Our principles are abiding, not transitory. They are not subject to the whim of contemporary interpretation. The very fact that the principles enshrined in our founding documents have led to the emancipation of slaves and women's suffrage and ever-improving opportunity and equality for all in this country serves only to prove how eternal and immutable those principles are.
And Frank, nor does your personal experience negate your responsibility as a person blessed to be born in a free country to defend the Constitution both in practice and theory.
Howard,
Many of our principles have been the whim of contemporary interpretation.
Dread Scott, slavery, segregation, the end of segregation, abortion rights, detention of Japanese Americans in camps in WW II, Black Lists, prayer in the class room, Gay rights, etc.
Dred Scott, for example, has nothing to do with the founding principles, though it does demonstrate the danger of setting aside principle for contemporary interpretation. It is, in fact, a perfect example of how we can go astray condoning torture rather than sticking to principles.
Howard,
I was just pointing out that how we see our principles has many times been at the whim of contemporary interpretation.
Our founding fathers would probably not support Gay Rights or school prayer bans. They did not accept Native Americans as citizens. But as times changed so did the interpretation of principles.
Again, segregation and interment of the Japanese are examples. Both were accepted principles at the time. Now we can't understand how that could have allowed. Times change and so does our interpretation.
If you look at how expansive the rights and ideals enshrined in the founding documents are, I think it's hard to walk away with the conclusion that the Founders didn't understand what they were doing.
The very fact that they said "all men are created equal" at a time when the treatment of many people fell far short of equal or just shows that they were interested in founding the new nation on principles rather than contemporary practice.
While I would not say that a Jefferson or Madison or Luther Martin would have predicted women's suffrage or emancipation or even gay rights, I doubt they would be shocked at the evolution of the country. The minds of the 18th Century man might have a hard time coming to grips with the level of opportunity and equality now taken for granted by so many of us, but I think they would have the intellectual capability not to recoil from it.
I believe we set the nation on the path to dictatorship when we accept the idea that the ideals of the Founding Fathers are mutable to the times. At that point, anything is possible and conceivable.
Frank, I simply disagree with you. I see defendants get aggressive defense all the time. This week, Andre Scott is on trial for attempted murder, defended by one of the best attorneys around, Tom Burns, as an assigned attorney. I've no doubt that Andre is getting representation as good as can be possible. I see great public defenders and assigned attorneys in County Court all the time.
I absolutely believe in the system and absolutely believe that anybody who says otherwise simply isn't fully informed.
Intelligent discourse is the best kind. Unintelligent discourse runs a close second. I like them both and they are hard to tell apart, way too often. But we have to keep trying. I'm going to keep trying, with you or without you. It really doesn't matter, I like talking to myself just fine. I really don't need y'all, I just like having you around.
Do you think torture has helped with the way Americans are perceived? And you are right, within the last decade, that perception has gotten much worse. Who was president for the majority of the last decade?
I disagree about this :
"While I would not say that a Jefferson or Madison or Luther Martin would have predicted women's suffrage or emancipation or even gay rights, I doubt they would be shocked at the evolution of the country. The minds of the 18th Century man might have a hard time coming to grips with the level of opportunity and equality now taken for granted by so many of us, but I think they would have the intellectual capability not to recoil from it".
The mind's of the 18th century man would be blown period. I think if you really look at all the lives of the people that wrote our Declaration that they would not survive our present condition. Some might be jailed. They weren't looking so much at long term as the short term effects and interpretations. Back then many things were "lost in translation" so to speak. I am not saying we should change the major concepts of all men created equal when it pertains to NON war times. After all you could have considered America as a Guerrilla warfare type of new nation back then.
Also, John gave some pretty good examples too.
Its plain to me, while I respect your opinion on All people's rights Howard, the fact of the matter is these terrorists use the fact that they arent bound by the geneva convention, they are not traditional combatants and they use innocents and hospitals and schools to hide in because they depend on us to be more moral. But sometimes when your principles become a big enough disadvantage you have to put them aside unless you are willing to accept the slaughter of your own side's people. Look to the big changes in so called civilized warfare. Do you think that the first indian/guerilla fighters who broke from regimental warfare were commended as great fighters or cowards. To us now regimental warfare is considered ridiculous. But now we have not only guerilla but urban and clandestine warfare as well. But back when these things developed they were looked upon as dishonorable, cowardly and disgusting ways to fight.
Also your pointing to America's history and the intent of the Founding Fathers. Thats all well and good but if you again look at the history of the USA you will see that one of the things we have always done is buck the curb of conventional thinking and doing. How many native american cultures did we eliminate? How did we treat our Japanese decended citizens here even while cleaning up the concentration camps in germany. We killed each other over slavery, civil rights, gold, ranchlands, and even territory. But yet here we are today, all those things made us what we are and brought us to what we are today. There are different paths to the future, Look at russia, and china the two biggest superpowers today. We all have skeletons in our closets. Sometimes you have to get dirty to achieve goals thats a fact of life. Things can always be made right after the conflict/war is done. But to pick apart what you have to do to win while you are in the moment has always led to failure. Look at the past for lessons, sometimes if you spend too much time worrying about image and rep you lose and end up getting wiped out of exsistance. SO my stance is do what we have to do with these foreign fighters, but when we get into citizens that fight for that side then start applying these rights as they apply to citizens. Thats my perspective on it.
How do the good people of
How do the good people of Batavia feel about the torture of U.S. soldiers by the Taliban? And just what is the difference between us torturing them and them torturing us? Just curious how the mind works.
George, its ok for them to
George, its ok for them to torture our soldiers, but we're held to a higher standard. Thats the crap the opponets of torture will feed us. Hell, if it was up to me, once I got the information from them, it would be time for the firing squad,to hell with wasting tax dollars to house them, and waste tons more money fighting with the ACLU about their rights. You know, when prisoners try to escape, they get shot. A friend of mine who served in Nam told me of an NVA officer their unit was transporting and how the officer decided to go for a walk while he was 2500 feet off the ground in a huey. Hey, this is war, stuffs going to happen.
wow frank i totally 100%
wow frank i totally 100% agree with you
So if the CIA picked you up
So if the CIA picked you up as a suspected terrorist, and without any proof or due process of law, started torturing you, that would be OK with you?
Not if they are a citizen
Not if they are a citizen Howard, otherwise, I think I am willing to look the other way, depending on the method used.
Yeah Howard,if I was running
Yeah Howard,if I was running around Afganistan with known terrorist, and carrying an AK-47,that would be fine with me.
I don't beleive the CIA is going around kidnapping and torturing innocent civilians. Look at all the "innocent" people we have in our prison system,almost all of them,lol.
Howard, is in the crapper
Howard, is in the crapper Been there, done that.
Frank, how do you know that
Frank, how do you know that some farmer didn't happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?
Whenever you steal the rights of another person, you're stealing them for yourself. You're providing the government with cover to do whatever the hell it pleases.
There's no moral justification for denying anybody their right to due process.
Peter, read the Declaration
Peter, read the Declaration of Independence.
All people have rights. The Constitution merely codifies the limitation of our government's powers because we can't control what other governments do, but the Founders clearly believed that basic rights extended to all people.
The United States does harm to the principles of its Founders when it violates the rights of non-citizens.
Thanks Howard,Frank and
Thanks Howard,Frank and Peter, this helps me understand. I won't comment any further at this time. Aye Carumba! I lie.
"A friend of mine who served
"A friend of mine who served in Nam told me of an NVA officer their unit was transporting and how the officer decided to go for a walk while he was 2500 feet off the ground in a huey."
Damn, same thing happened to Pat Tillman without the huey. War is hell.
Pat Tillman died from
Pat Tillman died from friendly.
Frank, I have to disagree
Frank, I have to disagree with you. We are held to a higher standard. We hold ourselves to it! We are one country under God and representative of Christians from our birth. I feel the varying religions should be able to live in peace and harmony together as we do here in the U.S. We are not terrorists and should hold ourselves in esteem, not act as barbarians.
Howard, would you please
Howard, would you please describe the type of torture that was used to gather information from Khalid Shaikh Mohammed that prevented specific terrorist attacks on innocent Americans and also led to the capture of wanted known terrorist.
While that is true Howard, my
While that is true Howard, my safety as a citizen trumps their right to not be bothered by our government.
If they want to legally immigrate here or become our ally and fight, then I wouldn't have an issue affording them the rights. I think its safe to say that our government does a good job of making sure they are not harassing those willing to help us.
But I do have a huge problem with capturing a U.S. Citizen on the battlefield and not affording him a military tribunal before treating him as a terrorist.
It seemed a bit more
It seemed a bit more acceptable when we turned over terror suspects to other friendly governments that knowingly use torture and let them work their magic. It seems like the only unwise part of it was getting caught, which is no big deal to most because it was justified by the government explaining that it saved many American lives. I don't think that the Declaration of Independence has any provision for the type of War or evil that we are experiencing today. The biggest mistake is trying to fight a war and be humane while getting results. I don't think torture is right in any situation but then again I can't control any government including ours from torture. Take a look at our economic situation and how many Americans are going through financial torture. Good luck stopping it with your vote. Ask the people who are still suffering from hurricane Katrina how they feel about terrorism and torture by our government.
I cannot believe the results
I cannot believe the results of this poll. I fear for my safety as a result of the people who would vote yes to this. Whether it be from backlash when traveling overseas as a result of this perceived American mindset, or from the individuals at home who are so willing to put another through unimaginable suffering to ease their paranoid illusion that a specific, potentially innocent captive, may or may not have information that is potentially putting their safety at risk.
Peter, your fear of your safety (citizen or not) does not trump anyone's right to not be tortured, especially when the word potentially or allegedly can be used in the description of the "suspect".
Gabor, The Declaration of
Gabor,
The Declaration of Independence was not for women, blacks or native Americans. That evolved later.
It was also written when this type of warfare was very common on the frontier.
I wonder how many of you that
I wonder how many of you that are OK with these "methods" have either served in the military of with someone who was in a wartime sutuation.
I know that Peter was in, but I'm curious about the rest. It is very easy for anyone to sit here and say what is reasonable when you do not have to do the fighting. When the repercusions of your decisions are not felt. It is fair for you to think it is acceptable to do this because it "saves" lives. That is a warm blanket to cover up with.
I have seen these methods first hand. You have read about them. I have also had the experience of finding out information in other ways. Less intrusive and more tactical. Those are the things that save lives, not this.
Again, I have no love for people who will kill innocents for some grand God and his gifts. I just find it suspect when people who have no real knowledge of what it's like to be in these enviornments can tell me with all certainity what's best.
Phil, Right or wrong, I have
Phil,
Right or wrong, I have seen both the "nice" and "bad" methods used. Both sometimes worked and other times did not.
But the other side always used the "bad", and our guys were always in uniform.
Just to clarify I am ok with
Just to clarify I am ok with water boarding and with what happened in Abu Graib. I'm not good with actual physical harm such as beating the bottoms of feet, electric shock, any many things much more violent.
Sleep deprivation and cold temperature exposure in a controlled environment don't bother me in the least. Loud music and the defacing of a so called holy book are ok with me too.
I know too many guys, John
I know too many guys, John that were subjected.
I guess here is my problem. It's really easy to come on here and say all of these hateful things, and yes they are hateful. It's easy to say what we should do, but the truth no one on here has ever had to get infornation this way.
This isn't a conversation if the enemy was right to do it. They're weren't, they're scum for doing it, but how are we then right to do it? John, do you know how many times did we actually procure real intelligence from these methods? Not nearly as much as using the "nice" way as you call it.
Using the "well they do it" line of defense is a joke. Not if your real interest is in saving lives. You tell me that these forms of interrogation are effective and I call bullshit. So unless you have actually been there and done that, it just sounds like a bunch of angry people to me.
Phil, I have never served in
Phil, I have never served in the military during wartime. I also have bad credit. It doesn't mean that my point of view would change or should be discounted either. Last I knew our Government is in debt too. We all know in War you can't count any opponent to follow our rules. Geneva convention only works when other governments agree with it. Even with that in mind everyone knows that our country is a push over. War was not made to be nice unless you play it with a deck of cards. I still feel that torture is wrong.
Obviously you didn't read my
Obviously you didn't read my response, Gabor. I do too.
I remember my mom asking me,
I remember my mom asking me, "If your friend walked off the end of a pier, would you do it, too?"
Just because the other guy does something doesn't make it right, moral, ethical, wise or righteous.
If you really want to know
If you really want to know what we're up against when dealing with the fanatical Muslim World I'd suggest reading some of Christopher Hitchens essays or this interview that Michael Totten had with Jonathan Spyer.
http://pajamasmedia.com/michaeltotten/2010/08/25/the-perfect-iranian-st…
Civilized ideals are great, but don't expect reciprocity when your enemy doesn't share them.
Phil, I was typing while you
Phil, I was typing while you posted your second comment. I just wanted to stick in that credit thing from an earlier post (teehee). I feel like you are trying to say that the people who think torture is acceptable are the ones who never have served while in war or known someone who has? I can bet if they did then they won't change their minds because they want pay back.
War is a dirty, filthy, and life taking action period. When we developed and dropped those two bombs on Japan it was supposed to be GAME OVER for future war against us. You could even say we killed civilians for the greater good. They (Japan) were masters at torture. I knew an ex POW. I guess I should leave it all up to history. If you study past wars against anything the take no prisoners type of philosophy seems the most beneficial.
This discusion reminds me of
This discusion reminds me of the movie Unthinkable. It's a good movie that gets you to think about just how far torture should go and if it would be worth it in the end.
Kind of Gabor. What I am
Kind of Gabor.
What I am saying is that I have actually seen (and done) up close to both ways, and by far the less physical ways netted more results that actually amounted to something.
My biggest complaint is that those who call for torture, or ignore it (one in the same to me) as a form of making us secure have never seen it up close. They read reports about it, or listen to Radio guys like Limbaugh, but have never been apart of it to actually know. There is a reason why so many in the intelligence community don't use these techniques.
Regardless, Wars are horrible and they are pointless. You're right too, Gabor about all that you said to describe it. I don't disagree, but what I am saying is that if we are going to use this as a means to protect us, it's not effective.
If people feel we should do it just because they do it to us, then that's just anger to me and I don't agree. Believe me I'm mad. I lost people in 9/11, watched friends come back from Iraq different or not at all. I want these bastards to just disappear too, but I want it done right.
Phil, I think anybody who
Phil, I think anybody who advocates torture should really sit and think about whether they would want it done to them, or their children.
It's all find an good to say "they're the enemy," or "they were caught with an AK47" or "they hung out with terrorists," etc.
Without due process, how do we know that's true? Without due process, how do you know you've got the right person?
Something like half of the Gitmo "terrorists" have had their cases thrown out because the evidence against them is tainted by torture.
Once you grant due process, now you're in a legal system that has punishments for the guilty. One of our traditions, one of the traditions that made America great, is that we consider "cruel and unusual punishment" to be immoral.
I don't see how any flag-waving American can condone torture or anything that violates the rights of others. There's no justification for it. Ever. Under any circumstances.
Nick Berg. Daniel
Nick Berg.
Daniel Pearl.
Margret Hassan.
H
H
Jeremiah, how much you want
Jeremiah, how much you want to bet that Daniel Pearl would insist on due process for anybody accused of participating in his murder?
Let me put it this way: If I ever come to a tragic end at the hands of another person, I INSIST that anybody accused of the crime receive full due process of the law and an aggressive, competent defense. I want the right person punished, not just any person.
And as I said before, the fact that the other guy doesn't follow our values doesn't let us off the hook in our obligation to stay true.
Our principles are abiding, not transitory. They are not subject to the whim of contemporary interpretation. The very fact that the principles enshrined in our founding documents have led to the emancipation of slaves and women's suffrage and ever-improving opportunity and equality for all in this country serves only to prove how eternal and immutable those principles are.
And Frank, nor does your personal experience negate your responsibility as a person blessed to be born in a free country to defend the Constitution both in practice and theory.
Howard, Many of our
Howard,
Many of our principles have been the whim of contemporary interpretation.
Dread Scott, slavery, segregation, the end of segregation, abortion rights, detention of Japanese Americans in camps in WW II, Black Lists, prayer in the class room, Gay rights, etc.
John, to me your comment
John, to me your comment makes no sense.
Dred Scott, for example, has nothing to do with the founding principles, though it does demonstrate the danger of setting aside principle for contemporary interpretation. It is, in fact, a perfect example of how we can go astray condoning torture rather than sticking to principles.
Howard, I was just pointing
Howard,
I was just pointing out that how we see our principles has many times been at the whim of contemporary interpretation.
Our founding fathers would probably not support Gay Rights or school prayer bans. They did not accept Native Americans as citizens. But as times changed so did the interpretation of principles.
Again, segregation and interment of the Japanese are examples. Both were accepted principles at the time. Now we can't understand how that could have allowed. Times change and so does our interpretation.
John, If you look at how
John,
If you look at how expansive the rights and ideals enshrined in the founding documents are, I think it's hard to walk away with the conclusion that the Founders didn't understand what they were doing.
The very fact that they said "all men are created equal" at a time when the treatment of many people fell far short of equal or just shows that they were interested in founding the new nation on principles rather than contemporary practice.
While I would not say that a Jefferson or Madison or Luther Martin would have predicted women's suffrage or emancipation or even gay rights, I doubt they would be shocked at the evolution of the country. The minds of the 18th Century man might have a hard time coming to grips with the level of opportunity and equality now taken for granted by so many of us, but I think they would have the intellectual capability not to recoil from it.
I believe we set the nation on the path to dictatorship when we accept the idea that the ideals of the Founding Fathers are mutable to the times. At that point, anything is possible and conceivable.
H
H
Sean, you hit the nail on the
Sean, you hit the nail on the head.
Frank, I simply disagree with
Frank, I simply disagree with you. I see defendants get aggressive defense all the time. This week, Andre Scott is on trial for attempted murder, defended by one of the best attorneys around, Tom Burns, as an assigned attorney. I've no doubt that Andre is getting representation as good as can be possible. I see great public defenders and assigned attorneys in County Court all the time.
I absolutely believe in the system and absolutely believe that anybody who says otherwise simply isn't fully informed.
Howard, read the Spangenberg
Howard, read the Spangenberg Groups report on indigent defense systems in New York State; http://www.nycourts.gov/ip/indigentdefense-commission/SpangenbergGroupR…
After reading this, then tell me I'm not informed.
Intelligent discourse is the
Intelligent discourse is the best kind. Unintelligent discourse runs a close second. I like them both and they are hard to tell apart, way too often. But we have to keep trying. I'm going to keep trying, with you or without you. It really doesn't matter, I like talking to myself just fine. I really don't need y'all, I just like having you around.
Sean, don't know where ya
Sean, don't know where ya been for the last decade, but Americans have been targets overseas long before this torture issue hit the news stands.
Americans have been the
Americans have been the target of Muslim countries since the very beginning of our country.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/barbary.htm
Frank, Do you think torture
Frank,
Do you think torture has helped with the way Americans are perceived? And you are right, within the last decade, that perception has gotten much worse. Who was president for the majority of the last decade?
O
O
I disagree about this
I disagree about this :
"While I would not say that a Jefferson or Madison or Luther Martin would have predicted women's suffrage or emancipation or even gay rights, I doubt they would be shocked at the evolution of the country. The minds of the 18th Century man might have a hard time coming to grips with the level of opportunity and equality now taken for granted by so many of us, but I think they would have the intellectual capability not to recoil from it".
The mind's of the 18th century man would be blown period. I think if you really look at all the lives of the people that wrote our Declaration that they would not survive our present condition. Some might be jailed. They weren't looking so much at long term as the short term effects and interpretations. Back then many things were "lost in translation" so to speak. I am not saying we should change the major concepts of all men created equal when it pertains to NON war times. After all you could have considered America as a Guerrilla warfare type of new nation back then.
Also, John gave some pretty good examples too.
Sean, I didn't vote for Bush.
Sean, I didn't vote for Bush.
H
H
Its plain to me, while I
Its plain to me, while I respect your opinion on All people's rights Howard, the fact of the matter is these terrorists use the fact that they arent bound by the geneva convention, they are not traditional combatants and they use innocents and hospitals and schools to hide in because they depend on us to be more moral. But sometimes when your principles become a big enough disadvantage you have to put them aside unless you are willing to accept the slaughter of your own side's people. Look to the big changes in so called civilized warfare. Do you think that the first indian/guerilla fighters who broke from regimental warfare were commended as great fighters or cowards. To us now regimental warfare is considered ridiculous. But now we have not only guerilla but urban and clandestine warfare as well. But back when these things developed they were looked upon as dishonorable, cowardly and disgusting ways to fight.
Also your pointing to America's history and the intent of the Founding Fathers. Thats all well and good but if you again look at the history of the USA you will see that one of the things we have always done is buck the curb of conventional thinking and doing. How many native american cultures did we eliminate? How did we treat our Japanese decended citizens here even while cleaning up the concentration camps in germany. We killed each other over slavery, civil rights, gold, ranchlands, and even territory. But yet here we are today, all those things made us what we are and brought us to what we are today. There are different paths to the future, Look at russia, and china the two biggest superpowers today. We all have skeletons in our closets. Sometimes you have to get dirty to achieve goals thats a fact of life. Things can always be made right after the conflict/war is done. But to pick apart what you have to do to win while you are in the moment has always led to failure. Look at the past for lessons, sometimes if you spend too much time worrying about image and rep you lose and end up getting wiped out of exsistance. SO my stance is do what we have to do with these foreign fighters, but when we get into citizens that fight for that side then start applying these rights as they apply to citizens. Thats my perspective on it.