Tillerson out.
DaveSchmidt said:
BCC said:
tjohnEric doesn't agree with you
Many of us are tested and many are founding wanting when it comes to this sort of thing. It was torture then and it is torture now. Most people will hide behind the "following orders defense", but that defense is morally empty.
That’s undetermined. Tjohn (morality) and Eric (legality) were talking about different things.
We are talking in 2018 about the morality of 2002 when we were seriously concerned about another attack and the government authorized water boarding to prevent it. Sorry, but you don't get to impose today's morality on 2002. It was legal then and supported by Democrats and Republicans with oversight responsibility.
gerritn said:
If by "the Intel community" you mean some of the Republicans on the Intelligence Committee, and by "strongly support" you mean "well, but she was just following orders", then you are totally correct
BCC said:
Funny. The experts on MOL condemn and reject Haspel and the Intel community which should be the best source of information strongly support her
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/03/13/gina-haspel-trump-nominee-first-woman-leader-cia/419547002/
You are not paying attention. I have made it quite clear about whom I am referring to - - Brennan, Clapper, and Panetta. Do you know who they are? btw Panetta is a Democrat.
The rest has been answered several times
LOST said:
So am I allowed to bring up the Nuremburg Trials?
I missed the part where the trials were about water boarding I was under the assumption that they were about something far more serious.
Like 6 million Jews and 10s of millions of others killed as opposed to maybe 3-5 water boarded to get info about a future attack. As I said, the Democrats and Republicans overseeing this had no complaints.
Tom_Reingold said:
There was not societal consensus in 2002 that torture was OK.
More importantly, few people knew what was actually going on in 2002.
CIA chief Hayden banned waterboarding in 2006 (not exactly a whole 'nother era from 2002) after it became public in late 2005. Twin debates continued--is waterboarding torture? And, does torture even work to elicit valuable information?
BCC said:As I said, the Democrats and Republicans overseeing this had no complaints.
Does that mean you are okay with it?
BCC said:
We are talking in 2018 about the morality of 2002 when we were seriously concerned about another attack and the government authorized water boarding to prevent it. Sorry, but you don't get to impose today's morality on 2002. It was legal then and supported by Democrats and Republicans with oversight responsibility.
You talk about acts of our government as if they contain some element of morality. If memory serves, this is the same deliberative body that thought invading Iraq and destroying the Hussein regime was a good idea.
Tom_Reingold said:
There was not societal consensus in 2002 that torture was OK.
Based on what?
The people charged with defense of the homeland were certainly not opposed to i, Democrats and Republicans alike.
BCC said:
LOST said:
So am I allowed to bring up the Nuremburg Trials?
I missed the part where the trials were about water boarding I was under the assumption that they were about something far more serious.Like 6 million Jews and 10s of millions of others killed as opposed to maybe 3-5 water boarded to get info about a future attack. As I said, the Democrats and Republicans overseeing this had no complaints.
Where does it start? Where do we draw the line?
tjohn said:
BCC said:
We are talking in 2018 about the morality of 2002 when we were seriously concerned about another attack and the government authorized water boarding to prevent it. Sorry, but you don't get to impose today's morality on 2002. It was legal then and supported by Democrats and Republicans with oversight responsibility.
You talk about acts of our government as if they contain some element of morality. If memory serves, this is the same deliberative body that thought invading Iraq and destroying the Hussein regime was a good idea.
What is the moral position when you have been attacked and fear another one and you have a choice of hoping for the best or waterboarding several of the enemy who might give you info that might prevent it.
Choose one and choose it now, the day after the the twin towers went down.
BCC said:
Tom_Reingold said:
There was not societal consensus in 2002 that torture was OK.
Based on what?
The people charged with defense of the homeland were certainly not opposed to i, Democrats and Republicans alike.
If everyone was so in favor of it, then why was it "off-shored" to some place in Thailand?
LOST said:
BCC said:
LOST said:
So am I allowed to bring up the Nuremburg Trials?
I missed the part where the trials were about water boarding I was under the assumption that they were about something far more serious.Like 6 million Jews and 10s of millions of others killed as opposed to maybe 3-5 water boarded to get info about a future attack. As I said, the Democrats and Republicans overseeing this had no complaints.
Where does it start? Where do we draw the line?
Wait until tomorrow. We can spend the next couple of days discussing that.
Morality aside, don't you think we should do what works and refrain from what doesn't work? We know it doesn't work. Choosing to torture is a depraved emotional response. And those we tortured had not attacked us, so it wasn't revenge, even if revenge is a legitimate response, which it isn't.
BCC said:tjohn said:What is the moral position when you have been attacked and fear another one and you have a choice of hoping for the best or waterboarding several of the enemy who might give you info that might prevent it.BCC said:
We are talking in 2018 about the morality of 2002 when we were seriously concerned about another attack and the government authorized water boarding to prevent it. Sorry, but you don't get to impose today's morality on 2002. It was legal then and supported by Democrats and Republicans with oversight responsibility.
You talk about acts of our government as if they contain some element of morality. If memory serves, this is the same deliberative body that thought invading Iraq and destroying the Hussein regime was a good idea.
Choose one and choose it now, the day after the the twin towers went down.
I expect leaders that don't lose their minds. For example, General Matthew Ridgway in Korea on assuming command when Allied forces were reeling under the Chinese counterattack or the IDF command in October, 1973 when you could be excused for thinking Israel was about to be overrun by Syrian and Egyptian tank armies.
nohero said:
BCC said:
Tom_Reingold said:
There was not societal consensus in 2002 that torture was OK.
Based on what?
The people charged with defense of the homeland were certainly not opposed to i, Democrats and Republicans alike.
If everyone was so in favor of it, then why was it "off-shored" to some place in Thailand?
I didn't say everyone was in favor of it.
BCC said:
nohero said:I didn't say everyone was in favor of it.
BCC said:If everyone was so in favor of it, then why was it "off-shored" to some place in Thailand?
Tom_Reingold said:
There was not societal consensus in 2002 that torture was OK.
Based on what?
The people charged with defense of the homeland were certainly not opposed to i, Democrats and Republicans alike.
Enough people were NOT in favor of it, let us say. So that suggests that Mr. Reingold's comment was correct.
Tom_Reingold said:
Morality aside, don't you think we should do what works and refrain from what doesn't work? We know it doesn't work. Choosing to torture is a depraved emotional response. And those we tortured had not attacked us, so it wasn't revenge, even if revenge is a legitimate response, which it isn't.
How many times do I have to explain the whole thing ? You are talking about 2002 and 16 years later. We have learned something since then. In 2002 water boarding looked like a good option, Today General Mattiss says he could do better with a pack of cigarettes and a couple of cold ones.
You say that in 2002 "waterboarding looked like a good option". On what do you base that? Who thought it was a good option?
Why wouldn't Mattiss's cigarettes and beer work just as well in 2002?
BCC said:
How many times do I have to explain the whole thing ? You are talking about 2002 and 16 years later. We have learned something since then. In 2002 water boarding looked like a good option, Today General Mattiss says he could do better with a pack of cigarettes and a couple of cold ones.
Many of us knew that torture was bad, even all the way back in the olden days of 2002. (You keep contradicting yourself, btw.)
BCC said:
Tom_Reingold said:
Morality aside, don't you think we should do what works and refrain from what doesn't work? We know it doesn't work. Choosing to torture is a depraved emotional response. And those we tortured had not attacked us, so it wasn't revenge, even if revenge is a legitimate response, which it isn't.
How many times do I have to explain the whole thing ? You are talking about 2002 and 16 years later. We have learned something since then. In 2002 water boarding looked like a good option, Today General Mattiss says he could do better with a pack of cigarettes and a couple of cold ones.
Funny, in 2002, some WW 2 interrogators were saying the same thing.
tjohn said:
BCC said:
tjohn said:What is the moral position when you have been attacked and fear another one and you have a choice of hoping for the best or waterboarding several of the enemy who might give you info that might prevent it.
BCC said:
We are talking in 2018 about the morality of 2002 when we were seriously concerned about another attack and the government authorized water boarding to prevent it. Sorry, but you don't get to impose today's morality on 2002. It was legal then and supported by Democrats and Republicans with oversight responsibility.
You talk about acts of our government as if they contain some element of morality. If memory serves, this is the same deliberative body that thought invading Iraq and destroying the Hussein regime was a good idea.
Choose one and choose it now, the day after the the twin towers went down.
I expect leaders that don't lose their minds. For example, General Matthew Ridgway in Korea on assuming command when Allied forces were reeling under the Chinese counterattack or the IDF command in October, 1973 when you could be excused for thinking Israel was about to be overrun by Syrian and Egyptian tank armies.
That is totally irrelevant. Those generals knew what they were facing and were smart enough to deal with it. The people dealing with 9/11 had no idea whether or not there would be another attack and therefore how to deal with it. They had to make a choice.
Would you have liked to be the one making a choice in 2002 ?
tjohn said:
BCC said:
Tom_Reingold said:
Morality aside, don't you think we should do what works and refrain from what doesn't work? We know it doesn't work. Choosing to torture is a depraved emotional response. And those we tortured had not attacked us, so it wasn't revenge, even if revenge is a legitimate response, which it isn't.
How many times do I have to explain the whole thing ? You are talking about 2002 and 16 years later. We have learned something since then. In 2002 water boarding looked like a good option, Today General Mattiss says he could do better with a pack of cigarettes and a couple of cold ones.
Funny, in 2002, some WW 2 interrogators were saying the same thing.
And some were not. So again, would you have liked to be one of those making the choice in 2002
BCC said:
That is totally irrelevant. Those generals knew what they were facing and were smart enough to deal with it. The people dealing with 9/11 had no idea whether or not there would be another attack and therefore how to deal with it. They had to make a choice.
Would you have liked to be the one making a choice in 2002 ?
Very nice. We have used FUD to justify all manner of regrettable actions - internment of Japanese-Americans in WW 2, killing Korean civilians at No Gun Ri.
LOST said:
You say that in 2002 "waterboarding looked like a good option". On what do you base that? Who thought it was a good option?
Why wouldn't Mattiss's cigarettes and beer work just as well in 2002?
Obviously the people on both sides of the aisle who chose it.
BCC said:
How many times do I have to explain the whole thing ? You are talking about 2002 and 16 years later. We have learned something since then. In 2002 water boarding looked like a good option, Today General Mattiss says he could do better with a pack of cigarettes and a couple of cold ones.
Speak for yourself. I didn't think it was a good idea then. You don't speak for the nation.
tjohn said:
BCC said:
That is totally irrelevant. Those generals knew what they were facing and were smart enough to deal with it. The people dealing with 9/11 had no idea whether or not there would be another attack and therefore how to deal with it. They had to make a choice.
Would you have liked to be the one making a choice in 2002 ?
Very nice. We have used FUD to justify all manner of regrettable actions - internment of Japanese-Americans in WW 2, killing Korean civilians at No Gun Ri.
More irrelevance. Screwing other people can certainly be laid on our doorstep but people genuinely afraid for the safety of our country are not in the same category..
Tom_Reingold said:
BCC said:
How many times do I have to explain the whole thing ? You are talking about 2002 and 16 years later. We have learned something since then. In 2002 water boarding looked like a good option, Today General Mattiss says he could do better with a pack of cigarettes and a couple of cold ones.
Speak for yourself. I didn't think it was a good idea then. You don't speak for the nation.
Well bully for you and when did I start speaking for the nation.
Rentals
-
Huge Brand New construction Apartment in 2 family home with 4 bedrooms 3 bathrooms
4 Bd | 3Full Ba
$4,500
1943 was a different time and murder was the accepted practice of the day. So, no.