Is it acceptable for the US government to torture people?

[BigSky]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=NCW251UYFPSWHQFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2004/05/09/wpearl09.xml

Daniel Pearl had Balls.

A couple points. First torture doesn't work. These first person accounts are pretty clear that US soldiers do not know how to torture so what we end up with is pointless cruelty. It seems manifest that pointless cruelty harms our interests and makes us less safe. And as the first person account of Mr. Fair made clear the impact on the torturer is profound and long lived.

The second point is that in World War II we did not torture. While our guys were being subjected to the Bataan Death March we were observing the Geneva Conventions. After WWII, while the USSR had literally hundreds thousands of nuclear warheads targeted on hundreds of American cities, we did not torture. We lived under the threat of nuclear annihilation at the hands of the godless Soviets for fifty years without torturing. The fact that the US did not torture is one of the things that protected us.

Actually torture does work.

Case in point.  In the Philippines a Al-Qaeda operative was picked up.  He refused to answer questions.  He was turned over to another Philippine officer who tortured him.

What information was gleaned from that you might ask?   He fessed up that Al-Qaeda had operatives in the US at flight schools learning how to fly planes, of which he named some names, he said the plan was to fly planes into buildings and named several.  This information was turned over to the Clinton Administration who not only refused to act on it up they in fact buried this information.  So in fact the most important piece of information that could have possibly been used to stop 9/11 was gleaned by torture.

It must also escape you that the allies deliberately bombed civilians during WWII.


To this day it is not official government policy to commit torture.

Geneva Conventions,  Actually by the GC terrorists are not covered by them.

However the SC did give them GC protections because the terrorists wanted them and they were a bit ignorant about how they work.  So be it.  As such by GC we do not have to give trials to any suspected terrorist until the war with them is over. So until Al-Qaeda surrenders all we catch can sit int Gitmo. Also we may execute all those we catch in the field of battle that are fighting without uniform as we may deem them spies as per the GC's.

[MattyBoy100]

Can I just point out the US didn't get involved in WWII until Britain was on it's knees and nearly invaded by the Germans.

Secondly, the US does what it wants and always has done.

[Sluff]

This should get interesting.    * get out the lounge chairs*   

[Bill Peckham]

Actually torture does work.

Case in point.  In the Philippines a Al-Qaeda operative was picked up.  He refused to answer questions.  He was turned over to another Philippine officer who tortured him.

What information was gleaned from that you might ask?   He fessed up that Al-Qaeda had operatives in the US at flight schools learning how to fly planes, of which he named some names, he said the plan was to fly planes into buildings and named several.  This information was turned over to the Clinton Administration who not only refused to act on it up they in fact buried this information.  So in fact the most important piece of information that could have possibly been used to stop 9/11 was gleaned by torture.

Your example proves the point - torture did not work. The information was not acted on because information gleaned through torture is suspect. When you torture people you can't act on what the person says because they are being tortured. That is why torture is not a tactic in the war on terror, torture is pointless cruelty. How about in all of human history an example of a successful society that condoned torture as a tool of State?

It must also escape you that the allies deliberately bombed civilians during WWII.

"War is not legally about killing. It is about compelling an enemy to submit. To achieve this it is lawful to incapacitate the enemy's military forces and damage or destroy valid military objectives. But you can never kill or further injure an enemy who offers to surrender or who is already incapacitated by illness, wounds, or previous capture." That nice summary is from Professor Dave Glazier http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/03/john-yoo-appears-to-confirm-cia.html who actually knows quite a bit about the laws of war -- he served twenty-one years as a Navy surface warfare officer before going to law school. It hurts your case to even bring up WWII. In WWII we fire bombed Dresden but we still weren't willing to torture, that should tell you something about what that generation thought about torture.

To this day it is not official government policy to commit torture.

Geneva Conventions,  Actually by the GC terrorists are not covered by them.

However the SC did give them GC protections because the terrorists wanted them and they were a bit ignorant about how they work.  So be it.  As such by GC we do not have to give trials to any suspected terrorist until the war with them is over. So until Al-Qaeda surrenders all we catch can sit int Gitmo. Also we may execute all those we catch in the field of battle that are fighting without uniform as we may deem them spies as per the GC's.

I posted first person accounts, it's pretty clear we have abandoned previous rules of conduct in the military and the use of mercenaries contractors creates a black hole that now allows us to disappear people.

The US is now breaching treaties and international conventions on human rights so it doesn't matter what label you give people, the label does not justify torture, secret rendition and acts of thuggery. Your construct allows a who? A company commander, a contractor ... some low level individual to decide some poor schlub is a terrorist for who knows what reason and it's see ya, wouldn't want to be ya.

No thanks.

[Bill Peckham]

Mention torture to those who lost love ones on 9/11, they have suffered more torture than can be imagined. This world anymore comes down to fighting fire with fire, I say do whats needed. "Kill them all, let GOD sort em out".

That's it isn't it. Torture is about getting even, vengeance.

Should a State be in the vengeance business?

[kitkatz]

Pass the popcorn.

[angela515]

Pass me some too. 

[meadowlandsnj]

I don't know who wrote this but it sums up my feelings pretty well.


Ave Maria
Where is the justice in this world?
The wicked make so much noise, mother
The righteous stay oddly still
With no wisdom, all of the riches in the world leave us poor tonight

And strength is not without humility
It's weakness, an untreatable disease
And war is always the choice
Of the chosen who will not have to fight

[nextnoel]

Bill Peckham for President.

[glitter]

                                                   




                                                                     BigSky for President!!

[BigSky]

Your example proves the point - torture did not work. The information was not acted on because information gleaned through torture is suspect. When you torture people you can't act on what the person says because they are being tortured. That is why torture is not a tactic in the war on terror, torture is pointless cruelty. How about in all of human history an example of a successful society that condoned torture as a tool of State?

Actually you are wrong because it did prove the point, so far beyond a doubt that a blind man could see it.

What the torture gleaned was the plan of 9/11  DUH!!!

"War is not legally about killing. It is about compelling an enemy to submit. To achieve this it is lawful to incapacitate the enemy's military forces and damage or destroy valid military objectives. But you can never kill or further injure an enemy who offers to surrender or who is already incapacitated by illness, wounds, or previous capture." That nice summary is from Professor Dave Glazier http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/03/john-yoo-appears-to-confirm-cia.html who actually knows quite a bit about the laws of war -- he served twenty-one years as a Navy surface warfare officer before going to law school. It hurts your case to even bring up WWII. In WWII we fire bombed Dresden but we still weren't willing to torture, that should tell you something about what that generation thought about torture.

Actually  WWII shows how little you know.   Only you would think torture was worse than the killing of civilians on purpose as was done in WWII.

I posted first person accounts, it's pretty clear we have abandoned previous rules of conduct in the military and the use of mercenaries contractors creates a black hole that now allows us to disappear people.

The US is now breaching treaties and international conventions on human rights so it doesn't matter what label you give people, the label does not justify torture, secret rendition and acts of thuggery. Your construct allows a who? A company commander, a contractor ... some low level individual to decide some poor schlub is a terrorist for who knows what reason and it's see ya, wouldn't want to be ya.

Sorry but your first person account is worthless.  Far too many have stepped forward claiming the same thing, thus giving the US a black eye, yet only later turning out to be false.

Till a US court confirms it beyond a reasonable doubt, its worthless.

Conduct changes with the times and the enemy, the military knows far more than you on what they need to do to get the job done fighting terrorists.  Considering it is the military putting their life on the line, and not you, I will go with what they want and what they want to do to protect this country.

[aharris2]

(alene writing ... do i really want to get into this one?)

Bill Peckham, I am with you. If we torture like others torture, when we deny people due process simply because they are not US citizens, and when we curtail civil liberties because we are afraid, the promise of America has already been destroyed.

My America, one that I could be proud of would take the high road.


(Folks, this is an international forum. We "gringos" tend to be quite blinded by our own propaganda. For this reason, I would love to hear more from non"gringos" on this topic, please. (thanks MattyBoy))

[Bill Peckham]

Umm, wrong.

Your example proves the point - torture did not work. The information was not acted on because information gleaned through torture is suspect. When you torture people you can't act on what the person says because they are being tortured. That is why torture is not a tactic in the war on terror, torture is pointless cruelty. How about in all of human history an example of a successful society that condoned torture as a tool of State?

Actually you are wrong because it did prove the point, so far beyond a doubt that a blind man could see it.
What the torture gleaned was the plan of 9/11  DUH!!!

Maybe you should ease up on banging your head. The information was not acted on, 9/11 happened. By what definition did the torture work? I thought the whole point of the ticking time bomb justification for torture was that through torture you could prevent the terrorist act. If your example is a success what would constitute failure?

I’ll make my unrebutted point again. Torture is pointless because you cannot act on the information gleaned. You cannot act on the information because you cannot trust the information. You cannot trust the information because its source was a person who was being tortured. The act of torture makes the product of torture worthless. There is no way around this.

There is a very well documented way to get good information from an initially uncooperative person that works some of the time. You have to try to flip them. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t but it has a proven record of sometimes working. Torture isn’t even intellectually plausible. Resorting to torture is self-defeating.

"War is not legally about killing. It is about compelling an enemy to submit. To achieve this it is lawful to incapacitate the enemy's military forces and damage or destroy valid military objectives. But you can never kill or further injure an enemy who offers to surrender or who is already incapacitated by illness, wounds, or previous capture." That nice summary is from Professor Dave Glazier http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/03/john-yoo-appears-to-confirm-cia.html who actually knows quite a bit about the laws of war -- he served twenty-one years as a Navy surface warfare officer before going to law school. It hurts your case to even bring up WWII. In WWII we fire bombed Dresden but we still weren't willing to torture, that should tell you something about what that generation thought about torture.

Actually  WWII shows how little you know.   Only you would think torture was worse than the killing of civilians on purpose as was done in WWII.

Well, we’ve come back to the quote that started this thread. Professor Glazer said it well. War is not about killing. Three traditions of thought dominate the ethics of war and peace: Realism; Pacifism; and Just War Theory (and, through just war theory, International Law). Bigsky I assume, you concur with US military tradition and would operate under Just War Theory. Or did you not know there was a Just War Theory that has governed US military action since Washington?

Don’t be embarrassed because it is clear John Yoo who worked  in the United States Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel from 2001 to 2003 isn’t familiar with Just War Theory either. Here is a good source – Stanford Law http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/ because Just War Theory's outline is pretty well settled.

“Just war theory can be meaningfully divided into three parts, which in the literature are referred to, for the sake of convenience, in Latin. These parts are: 1) jus ad bellum, which concerns the justice of resorting to war in the first place; 2) jus in bello, which concerns the justice of conduct within war, after it has begun; and 3) jus post bellum, which concerns the justice of peace agreements and the termination phase of war.”

We’re concerned with jus in bello.

2.2 Jus in bello
Jus in bello refers to justice in war, to right conduct in the midst of battle. Responsibility for state adherence to jus in bello norms falls primarily on the shoulders of those military commanders, officers and soldiers who formulate and execute the war policy of a particular state. They are to be held responsible for any breach of the principles which follow below. Such accountability may involve being put on trial for war crimes, whether by one's own national military justice system or perhaps by the newly-formed International Criminal Court (created by the 1998 Treaty of Rome).

We need to distinguish between external and internal jus in bello. External, or traditional, jus in bello concerns the rules a state should observe regarding the enemy and its armed forces. Internal jus in bello concerns the rules a state must follow in connection with its own people as it fights war against an external enemy.

There are several rules of external jus in bello let’s look at two:
 2. Discrimination and Non-Combatant Immunity. Soldiers are only entitled to use their (non-prohibited) weapons to target those who are, in Walzer's words, “engaged in harm.” Thus, when they take aim, soldiers must discriminate between the civilian population, which is morally immune from direct and intentional attack, and those legitimate military, political and industrial targets involved in rights-violating harm. While some collateral civilian casualties are excusable, it is wrong to take deliberate aim at civilian targets. An example would be saturation bombing of residential areas. (It is worth noting that almost all wars since 1900 have featured larger civilian, than military, casualties. Perhaps this is one reason why this rule is the most frequently and stridently codified rule in all the laws of armed conflict, as international law seeks to protect unarmed civilians as best it can.).

4. Benevolent quarantine for prisoners of war (POWs). If enemy soldiers surrender and become captives, they cease being lethal threats to basic rights. They are no longer “engaged in harm.” Thus it is wrong to target them with death, starvation, rape, torture, medical experimentation, and so on. They are to be provided, as The Geneva Conventions spell out, with benevolent—not malevolent—quarantine away from battle zones and until the war ends, when they should be exchanged for one's own POWs. Do terrorists deserve such protection, too? Great controversy surrounds the detainment and aggressive questioning of terrorist suspects held by the U.S. at jails in Cuba, Iraq and Pakistan in the name of the war on terror.

Both bombing civilian areas and treatment of those in your control fall under the jus in bello heart of international treaties and foundational agreements the US has signed and ratified. Let’s go back to Professor Glazer
“To argue that we could have killed them, so to mistreat them a bit should be OK, is totally contrary to every fundamental principle of the law of war. We could kill or wound them only when they were combatants at large and there was a military necessity to disable them from conducting further military operations against us. As soon as they were incapacitated, they became protected under both longstanding customary principles, enforced through literally thousands of war crimes convictions post-WWII, and the more familiar law of war treaties.”

I posted first person accounts, it's pretty clear we have abandoned previous rules of conduct in the military and the use of mercenaries contractors create a black hole that now allows us to disappear people.
The US is now breaching treaties and international conventions on human rights so it doesn't matter what label you give people, the label does not justify torture, secret rendition and acts of thuggery. Your construct allows a who? A company commander, a contractor ... some low level individual to decide some poor schlub is a terrorist for who knows what reason and it's see ya, wouldn't want to be ya.

Sorry but your first person account is worthless.  Far too many have stepped forward claiming the same thing, thus giving the US a black eye, yet only later turning out to be false.
Till a US court confirms it beyond a reasonable doubt, its worthless.
Conduct changes with the times and the enemy, the military knows far more than you on what they need to do to get the job done fighting terrorists.  Considering it is the military putting their life on the line, and not you, I will go with what they want and what they want to do to protect this country.

The military follow orders. The orders are given by elected civilians. It is our duty to question these sea changes in American policy. The US military did not request these changes in the rules of engagement. The military hates the mercenaries contractors. The mercenaries contractors are where abuses are happening that we may never acknowledge. As you say, until a judge/jury say they’re guilty it’s still open to question. We know about the abuses that soldiers have been involved with because of our professional military. However, the President has been forced to acknowledge secret rendition and his "Signing Statements" are there for all to see.

The mercenaries contractors  part of the story that is just coming out (see the April 2, 2007 issue of The Nation, now accessible on line. It contains an extended extract from Jeremy Scahill's  fascinating and magnificently documented new book, Blackwater: The Rise of America's Most Powerful Mercenary Army) will make supporters of the America’s citizen soldier model  weep.


You claimed Jefferson said to the affect that it was better to break principals than to stick to them and lose the country because of them. I can’t imagine he said anything of the sort when speaking of the Founding Principles of the country. Jefferson may have said such a thing in relation to personal views – slavery, temperance – but torture goes to the Founding Principles of the Republic. Here is some of what Jefferson said in regard to our Founding Principles:

"More than a generation will be requisite [for an unprepared people], under the administration of reasonable laws favoring the progress of knowledge in the general mass of the people, and their habituation to an independent security of person and property, before they will be capable of estimating the value of freedom, and the necessity of a sacred adherence to the principles on which it rests for preservation." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1815. ME 14:245

If Jefferson were alive he would maintain that torture is an affront to and incompatible with freedom.

[Sluff]

Draw more bees with honey never works in war. Kindness is a form of weakness when it comes to war.

Rules of engagement.

Do not fire until fired upon and then beat them at their own game.

[kitkatz]

Lawn chairs are set up on the front lawn for the adults. Blankets are on the lawn for the kiddies.
Beer is in the ice chest.

This is getting good!

[Sluff]

Leave the kiddies at home for this one.

[kitkatz]

 The question before us is: Is it right to torture prisoners that have been captured during wartime?
      The act of becoming a prisoner is a life altering act.  It is not by choice that one becomes a prisoner of war, but through the act of participating in a war.  Becoming a soldier or a civilian involved in desperate acts against an enemy and getting cuaght at it.  Should these people be tortured while in custody?  No, they should not be.  And we should not retaliate for the torturing of our prisoners by torturing the ones that we have.  Two wrongs are never going to make a right during wartime.  Besides information taken under torture can be false and misleading.  Some people will say anything and it will be true as soon as it leaves their lips, just to avoid being harmed.   Are we going to sink lower and lower into the terrorist mind set as a nation, or are we going to tell them to grow up and bomb the living tar out of them?


*Setting out the lawn chairs and getting the glass of ice out.*

[BigSky]

Maybe you should ease up on banging your head. The information was not acted on, 9/11 happened. By what definition did the torture work? I thought the whole point of the ticking time bomb justification for torture was that through torture you could prevent the terrorist act. If your example is a success what would constitute failure?

Well we know why people like you are not in charge of protecting us now.

"Pretty simple to understand.....

1. Terrorist gives up plot to what is 9/11 months ahead of time.
2. Government acts on information investigating it.
3. Information turns out to be true.
4. Arrest individuals and put measures in place so it cannot occur.

Ohh wait though that asshat king the Clinton Administration failed to do any of that at all.

For you to claim that the torture didn't work because your leftest leader at the time failed to act is not only disingenuous, but a slap to those that died because of that failure by the Clinton Administration.

I’ll make my unrebutted point again. Torture is pointless because you cannot act on the information gleaned. You cannot act on the information because you cannot trust the information. You cannot trust the information because its source was a person who was being tortured. The act of torture makes the product of torture worthless. There is no way around this.

No,... you and your type cannot act, because evidently you do not understand how to use the information.  A simple investigation of what was said EASILY tells if it was true or not.  Of course that may have taken away "cuddle time" with Monica though.

You claimed Jefferson said to the affect that it was better to break principals than to stick to them and lose the country because of them. I can’t imagine he said anything of the sort when speaking of the Founding Principles of the country. Jefferson may have said such a thing in relation to personal views – slavery, temperance – but torture goes to the Founding Principles of the Republic.

You might note it was not necessary for Jefferson to address every little thing in specifics.  To think he would have to address torture specifically is foolish.  It is pretty clear what is meant.

"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means. "

If Jefferson were alive he would maintain that torture is an affront to and incompatible with freedom.

Doesn't look like it.

[Bill Peckham]

If you're so sure of Jefferson's intent why not post the quote in context? Too illuminating?

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_3s8.html

(sorry Tom wasn't much for paragraphs)
"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means. When, in the battle of Germantown, General Washington's army was annoyed from Chew's house, he did not hesitate to plant his cannon against it, although the property of a citizen. When he besieged Yorktown, he leveled the suburbs, feeling that the laws of property must be postponed to the safety of the nation. While the army was before York, the Governor of Virginia took horses, carriages, provisions and even men by force, to enable that army to stay together till it could master the public enemy; and he was justified. A ship at sea in distress for provisions, meets another having abundance, yet refusing a supply; the law of self-preservation authorizes the distressed to take a supply by force. In all these cases, the unwritten laws of necessity, of self-preservation, and of the public safety, control the written laws of meum and tuum. Further to exemplify the principle, I will state an hypothetical case. Suppose it had been made known to the Executive of the Union in the autumn of 1805, that we might have the Floridas for a reasonable sum, that that sum had not indeed been so appropriated by law, but that Congress were to meet within three weeks, and might appropriate it on the first or second day of their session. Ought he, for so great an advantage to his country, to have risked himself by transcending the law and making the purchase? The public advantage offered, in this supposed case, was indeed immense; but a reverence for law, and the probability that the advantage might still be legally accomplished by a delay of only three weeks, were powerful reasons against hazarding the act. But suppose it foreseen that a John Randolph would find means to protract the proceeding on it by Congress, until the ensuing spring, by which time new circumstances would change the mind of the other party. Ought the Executive, in that case, and with that foreknowledge, to have secured the good to his country, and to have trusted to their justice for the transgression of the law? I think he ought, and that the act would have been approved. After the affair of the Chesapeake, we thought war a very possible result. Our magazines were illy provided with some necessary articles, nor had any appropriations been made for their purchase. We ventured, however, to provide them, and to place our country in safety; and stating the case to Congress, they sanctioned the act.

He then speaks to the actual case that occasioned the comments - Burr in New Orleans - and then summerizes:

"From these examples and principles you may see what I think on the question proposed. They do not go to the case of persons charged with petty duties, where consequences are trifling, and time allowed for a legal course, nor to authorize them to take such cases out of the written law. In these, the example of overleaping the law is of greater evil than a strict adherence to its imperfect provisions. It is incumbent on those only who accept of great charges, to risk themselves on great occasions, when the safety of the nation, or some of its very high interests are at stake. An officer is bound to obey orders; yet he would be a bad one who should do it in cases for which they were not intended, and which involved the most important consequences. The line of discrimination between cases may be difficult; but the good officer is bound to draw it at his own peril, and throw himself on the justice of his country and the rectitude of his motives."

So Jefferson would support a Jack Bower Season One or Two application of coercion - against orders, and accept the personal consequences - not torture embedded in State policy. Jefferson, a famous internationalist would certainly be abhorred by this administration's abandonment of cherished American standards and our diminishment in international standing.

The adults are starting to look into this and by 2008 we'll be able to start on sorting this out.

[BigSky]

His intent is quite clear.

"The question you propose, whether circumstances do not sometimes occur, which make it a duty in officers of high trust, to assume authorities beyond the law, is easy of solution in principle, but sometimes embarrassing in practice."

From the very first paragraph his statement indicates a broad concern over all issues, he laid out issues of the day, it was not necessary for him to address every conceivable issue that may arise in the future when he made that statement and to think he should have done so specifically is asinine and contrary to what Jefferson said about many issues.  I.E. Right to bear arms

You have no grasp or understanding of torture and that is clear.  Of course the fact he was a anti-federalist aka republican probably throws you.

Maybe if you were not such a pc leftest you might actually grasp what TRUE torture is.  By your leftest definition any thing that upsets one could be considered torture.

There are degrees of everything.

The very simple fact that we do not kill prisoners, cut their heads off, broadcast the cutting of their throats or heads off on tv or the internet, or the fact that we go to great lengths to keep from getting innocent civilians killed (so much so lives of our soldiers are lost because of it) shows we are fighting this war on terror in a very moral manner.

[Bill Peckham]

Yes Jefferson is saying it is alright to steel a horse or even level Hackensack New Jersey to save the Republic but the idea that we would torture would have never crossed his mind. It is pretty humerous that you would suggest that Jefferson, of all the Founders, would support resorting to torture. Maybe Hamilton, but Jefferson? That's preposterous.

I asked you in reply #23 "Do you really believe that the threats facing us today are categorically different than threats faced by this nation in the past?" you never did answer.

[BigSky]

Yes Jefferson is saying it is alright to steel a horse or even level Hackensack New Jersey to save the Republic but the idea that we would torture would have never crossed his mind. It is pretty humerous that you would suggest that Jefferson, of all the Founders, would support resorting to torture. Maybe Hamilton, but Jefferson? That's preposterous.

You fail to grasp that not every little specific thing needed to cross his mind.

It is more than evident that this was his thinking.  One only needs to look at how the Constitution was written to see this.    He knew better than to pigeonhole future generations.

Hmm funny you say that about Hamiltion because its clear you take the Hamiliton view on government and the Constitution.

I asked you in reply #23 "Do you really believe that the threats facing us today are categorically different than threats faced by this nation in the past?" you never did answer.

Far more than at any other time in history.  But as always you dont quite understand do you.   Not only do we have to deal with the outside threat but that from within from trying to hogtie our troops and government from taking the very drastic actions to deal with these very drastic times.


U.S. SOLDIER BURNED IN EFFIGY AT PORTLAND ANTI-WAR PROTEST

http://linfield.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2012088&l=c6305&id=65201211

[nextnoel]

Just a comment, for which I fully expect to get pounded: 

Let's keep to the subject, which is interesting in and of itself, and limit the snarky ad hominem comments.  Slights and digs aimed at the person being addressed serve only to make the author of those comments sound unreasonable, and detract from the arguments being put forth.

And now, I'm going out to Sunny's Surplus to find a World War II helmet for myself!  And let the good times roll!

[meadowlandsnj]

Just a comment, for which I fully expect to get pounded: 

Let's keep to the subject, which is interesting in and of itself, and limit the snarky ad hominem comments.  Slights and digs aimed at the person being addressed serve only to make the author of those comments sound unreasonable, and detract from the arguments being put forth.

     That's right there's no need for nastiness and disrespect.  We can agree to disagree, okay?   

Donna

[Bill Peckham]

Yes Jefferson is saying it is alright to steel a horse or even level Hackensack New Jersey to save the Republic but the idea that we would torture would have never crossed his mind. It is pretty humerous that you would suggest that Jefferson, of all the Founders, would support resorting to torture. Maybe Hamilton, but Jefferson? That's preposterous.

You fail to grasp that not every little specific thing needed to cross his mind.

It is more than evident that this was his thinking.  One only needs to look at how the Constitution was written to see this.    He knew better than to pigeonhole future generations.

Are you seriously saying that you think Jefferson would condone torture?

Hmm funny you say that about Hamiltion because its clear you take the Hamiliton view on government and the Constitution.

Hamilton was a Federalist. I would have guessed that you were a state rights guy. oh wait that's right you have that whole Federal Reserve is evil POV.

I asked you in reply #23 "Do you really believe that the threats facing us today are categorically different than threats faced by this nation in the past?" you never did answer.

Far more than at any other time in history.  But as always you dont quite understand do you.   Not only do we have to deal with the outside threat but that from within from trying to hogtie our troops and government from taking the very drastic actions to deal with these very drastic times.

After 75 months of Republican hegemony it's a bit incredible to fret that 75 days of Congressional oversight threatens the Republic. This isn't even a top five most threatening situation. Stalin had nukes pointed at us. Mao had nukes pointed at us. We didn't torture our enemies then.

U.S. SOLDIER BURNED IN EFFIGY AT PORTLAND ANTI-WAR PROTEST

http://linfield.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2012088&l=c6305&id=65201211

Do you answer for the group that protests at military funerals?
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Anti-gay_church_protests_U.S._military_funerals