LA Times - Torture: the new abortion [Archive] - Debate Policy

red states rule

11-10-2007, 07:15 AM

This is funny folks. Libs do not left a finger to stop the killing of the unborn but when it comes to stopping the "torture" of terrorists they leap into action

Now the LA Times thinks the new litmus test for Republicans in how they stand on "torture" of terrorists (or as libs think of them - freedom fighters)

Torture: the new abortion
The legality of torture takes over as the political litmus test in campaigns and confirmation hearings.
November 8, 2007

Remember that golden, innocent time -- the 1980s and '90s -- when the phrase "political litmus test" was associated with the debate about abortion rights, and torture was associated with the Spanish Inquisition?

Those days are gone. And, as usual in life, there's good news and bad news.

The good news? Abortion isn't nearly as divisive an issue as it used to be. The bad news? For the GOP, torture is the new abortion.

Not too long ago, judicial nominees and political candidates could expect to be grilled on abortion. As the Republican leadership became dominated by right-wing evangelicals, staunch opposition to abortion became a precondition for those seeking support from GOP insiders. Soon, abortion was a litmus test for both parties. Just as Republicans would oppose any candidate or nominee who supported abortion rights, Democrats would oppose anyone who wanted Roe vs. Wade overturned.

Of course, the abortion debate was never just about abortion. It was also about the role of the judiciary, the role of individual freedom, the role of women and the role of religion. As a result, debates about abortion sparked pitched battles between the political parties.

Today, though, the GOP's interest in abortion appears greatly diminished. When President Bush nominated Michael B. Mukasey as attorney general, no one seemed clear about Mukasey's views on abortion -- and no one in the GOP seemed to care very much either.

These days, you can forget that old-style GOP rhetoric about "values," "human dignity" and the "culture of life." Because the GOP has a new litmus test for its nominees: Will you or will you not protect U.S. officials who order the torture of prisoners?

for the complete article (you have to set up a FREE account)

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-brooks8nov08,1,1633058.column?coll=la-news-a_section&ctrack=3&cset=true

diuretic

11-10-2007, 07:19 AM

Will you or will you not protect U.S. officials who order the torture of prisoners?

That's a powerful line.

red states rule

11-10-2007, 07:22 AM

That's a powerful line.

Do you want to protect terrorists so they can carry out their attacks and kill innocent people is a more accurate question

diuretic

11-10-2007, 08:00 AM

Do you want to protect terrorists so they can carry out their attacks and kill innocent people is a more accurate question

And I would think the obvious answer is, "no, of course not."

red states rule

11-10-2007, 08:06 AM

And I would think the obvious answer is, "no, of course not."

Then tell the Dems who are pushing for the Terrorist Bill of Rights.

As I said, libs don't give a shit how many unborn babies are killed, but they leap to the defense of terrorists

Go figure

diuretic

11-10-2007, 09:42 AM

Then tell the Dems who are pushing for the Terrorist Bill of Rights.

As I said, libs don't give a shit how many unborn babies are killed, but they leap to the defense of terrorists

Go figure

There's a bill of rights for terrorists? But how can that be. If they know they're terrorists then that would be because they've been found as such by a competent court of law wouldn't it?

On abortion. If you want to point out inconsistencies then what about the anti-abortion folks who are pro-death penalty?

Hah, it's okay, you don't have to answer, there's no inconstency between someone who opposes a woman's right to abortion and supports capital punishment for convicted murders. Completely separate concepts which can be held at the same time by the same individual without inconsistency.

Just as it's possible to support the presumption of innocence and ordinary legal rights for someone ACCUSED of terrorist acts or their preparation.

red states rule

11-10-2007, 09:46 AM

There's a bill of rights for terrorists? But how can that be. If they know they're terrorists then that would be because they've been found as such by a competent court of law wouldn't it?

On abortion. If you want to point out inconsistencies then what about the anti-abortion folks who are pro-death penalty?

Hah, it's okay, you don't have to answer, there's no inconstency between someone who opposes a woman's right to abortion and supports capital punishment for convicted murders. Completely separate concepts which can be held at the same time by the same individual without inconsistency.

Just as it's possible to support the presumption of innocence and ordinary legal rights for someone ACCUSED of terrorist acts or their preparation.

Libs have been busting a gut to help the terrorists. They try to have them released from prison, they demand US Constitutional rights for them, cheer when the liberal media published classified information that provides the terrorists vital information on how the US government is tracking them, and they smear and insult the US military

The death penalty punished the guilty while abortion kills the innocent. I find it sad libs think women have a right to murder their children

theHawk

11-10-2007, 10:45 AM

There's a bill of rights for terrorists? But how can that be. If they know they're terrorists then that would be because they've been found as such by a competent court of law wouldn't it?

.....

Just as it's possible to support the presumption of innocence and ordinary legal rights for someone ACCUSED of terrorist acts or their preparation.

I'm not sure what you mean by "If they know they're terrorists then that would be because they've been found as such by a competent court of law". We don't need a court to determine if someone is a terrorist. In fact, it really doesn't have anything to do with defining someone as a "terrorist" to begin with. If someone takes action against our troops then that makes them an enemy. The soldiers on the ground there that capture them make that determination.

Presumption of innocence is only in the court of law. And in war its usually not possible to hold the same standard to our enemy on the battlefield. It would require our military to become police and detectives. Instead of trying to destroy the enemy they'd be pre-occupied with collecting evidence, and building a case against any suspected enemy. The idea of that is utterly rediculous. Military persons that are fighting a war are not going to be able to spend the time and resources to build a criminal case for every single enemy they capture. War is the presumtion of guilt. We are at war with these terrorists because we presume they are out to kill us.

None of these captured enemies overseas should see a courtroom. Their fate should be determined by the military.

red states rule

11-10-2007, 10:48 AM

I'm not sure what you mean by "If they know they're terrorists then that would be because they've been found as such by a competent court of law". We don't need a court to determine if someone is a terrorist. In fact, it really doesn't have anything to do with defining someone as a "terrorist" to begin with. If someone takes action against our troops then that makes them an enemy. The soldiers on the ground there that capture them make that determination.

Presumption of innocence is only in the court of law. And in war its usually not possible to hold the same standard to our enemy on the battlefield. It would require our military to become police and detectives. Instead of trying to destroy the enemy they'd be pre-occupied with collecting evidence, and building a case against any suspected enemy. The idea of that is utterly rediculous. Military persons that are fighting a war are not going to be able to spend the time and resources to build a criminal case for every single enemy they capture. War is the presumtion of guilt. We are at war with these terrorists because we presume they are out to kill us.

None of these captured enemies overseas should see a courtroom. Their fate should be determined by the military.

I agree

Look how long the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui took and all the BS the court had to endure during the trial

Take that and multipy by how many terrorists we have in jail.

The courts run slow now - they will come to a crawl if these bastards could exploit our court system

JohnDoe

11-10-2007, 10:51 AM

red states rule

11-10-2007, 10:58 AM

May I repeat, that TORTURE IS AGAINST THE LAW. War or not.

Even President Bush says that TORTURE is against the law, and even President Bush says that we don't TORTURE.

Are either of you, rsr or thehawk saying that this is not true?

jd

Again JD - if you want to see torture watch the video of Danial Pearl. Waterboarding, loud music, little food, no sleep is not torture

The SOB's are still breathing

Why do libs want to coddle these pigs who want us (and you and your family) dead?

diuretic

11-10-2007, 05:39 PM

Libs have been busting a gut to help the terrorists. They try to have them released from prison, they demand US Constitutional rights for them, cheer when the liberal media published classified information that provides the terrorists vital information on how the US government is tracking them, and they smear and insult the US military

The death penalty punished the guilty while abortion kills the innocent. I find it sad libs think women have a right to murder their children

Re "Libs have been busting a gut...." I'm going to call hyperbole on that one.

Death penalty/abortion. The death penalty might punish the guilty but it may also execute the innocent. The chance isn't worth taking. I find it sad that so many people feel the need to remove the right of choice from a woman simply on ideological or religious grounds. America is incapable of having a useful and clear debate on abortion because of the intrusion of fierce religiosity and an oppressive ideology. It's a shame because it's a potential debate over a medical procedure, when all's said and done.

diuretic

11-10-2007, 05:43 PM

I'm not sure what you mean by "If they know they're terrorists then that would be because they've been found as such by a competent court of law". We don't need a court to determine if someone is a terrorist. In fact, it really doesn't have anything to do with defining someone as a "terrorist" to begin with. If someone takes action against our troops then that makes them an enemy. The soldiers on the ground there that capture them make that determination.

If your troops are in the field fighting then they're fighting enemy combatants. Terrorists tend to try to avoid confronting the military, that's why they're called terrorists. They do things like plant bombs in market squares of towns in Northern Ireland or pubs in London, England.

Presumption of innocence is only in the court of law. And in war its usually not possible to hold the same standard to our enemy on the battlefield. It would require our military to become police and detectives. Instead of trying to destroy the enemy they'd be pre-occupied with collecting evidence, and building a case against any suspected enemy. The idea of that is utterly rediculous. Military persons that are fighting a war are not going to be able to spend the time and resources to build a criminal case for every single enemy they capture. War is the presumtion of guilt. We are at war with these terrorists because we presume they are out to kill us.

None of these captured enemies overseas should see a courtroom. Their fate should be determined by the military.

bin Laden hasn't been caught precisely because the Bush Administration eschewed the detective work approach. Instead, it seized on an act of terror by a bunch of Saudis so that it could attack Iraq. There's a disconnect there somewhere wouldn't you think?

Fighting in the field isn't fighting terrorists (see above).

diuretic

11-10-2007, 05:43 PM

diuretic

11-10-2007, 05:45 PM

Again JD - if you want to see torture watch the video of Danial Pearl. Waterboarding, loud music, little food, no sleep is not torture

The SOB's are still breathing

Why do libs want to coddle these pigs who want us (and you and your family) dead?

I haven't seen the video of Pearl being butchered, nor do I want to. But trying to justify the actions of your government in torturing suspects by pointing to the bloody excesses of a bunch of cut-throats is not an effective advocacy. Fine if you want the rest of the world to judge your government's moral standards by reference to a bunch of murderous sub-humans, but I would think it wasn't wise.

actsnoblemartin

11-10-2007, 06:37 PM

the la rag is only good for a tampon usage.

This is funny folks. Libs do not left a finger to stop the killing of the unborn but when it comes to stopping the "torture" of terrorists they leap into action

Now the LA Times thinks the new litmus test for Republicans in how they stand on "torture" of terrorists (or as libs think of them - freedom fighters)

Torture: the new abortion
The legality of torture takes over as the political litmus test in campaigns and confirmation hearings.
November 8, 2007

Remember that golden, innocent time -- the 1980s and '90s -- when the phrase "political litmus test" was associated with the debate about abortion rights, and torture was associated with the Spanish Inquisition?

Those days are gone. And, as usual in life, there's good news and bad news.

The good news? Abortion isn't nearly as divisive an issue as it used to be. The bad news? For the GOP, torture is the new abortion.

Not too long ago, judicial nominees and political candidates could expect to be grilled on abortion. As the Republican leadership became dominated by right-wing evangelicals, staunch opposition to abortion became a precondition for those seeking support from GOP insiders. Soon, abortion was a litmus test for both parties. Just as Republicans would oppose any candidate or nominee who supported abortion rights, Democrats would oppose anyone who wanted Roe vs. Wade overturned.

Of course, the abortion debate was never just about abortion. It was also about the role of the judiciary, the role of individual freedom, the role of women and the role of religion. As a result, debates about abortion sparked pitched battles between the political parties.

Today, though, the GOP's interest in abortion appears greatly diminished. When President Bush nominated Michael B. Mukasey as attorney general, no one seemed clear about Mukasey's views on abortion -- and no one in the GOP seemed to care very much either.

These days, you can forget that old-style GOP rhetoric about "values," "human dignity" and the "culture of life." Because the GOP has a new litmus test for its nominees: Will you or will you not protect U.S. officials who order the torture of prisoners?

for the complete article (you have to set up a FREE account)

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-brooks8nov08,1,1633058.column?coll=la-news-a_section&ctrack=3&cset=true

red states rule

11-10-2007, 06:38 PM

I haven't seen the video of Pearl being butchered, nor do I want to. But trying to justify the actions of your government in torturing suspects by pointing to the bloody excesses of a bunch of cut-throats is not an effective advocacy. Fine if you want the rest of the world to judge your government's moral standards by reference to a bunch of murderous sub-humans, but I would think it wasn't wise.

How the hell are we "torturing" the terrorist bastards?

The SOB's are still breathing, they are gaining weight, and live better then they do in their caves

Some do not want to go back home

I for one do not give a rats ass what the rest of the world thinks of the US. When ever they have a problem they call area code 202 for our money and help anyway

We liberated most of the world from dictators, and it is about time they remember that fact

actsnoblemartin

11-10-2007, 06:41 PM

they should be uncomturble theyre trying to kill us

the libs ideas are as smart as drinking and driving.

How the hell are we "torturing" the terrorist bastards?

The SOB's are still breathing, they are gaining weight, and live better then they do in their caves

Some do not want to go back home

I for one do not give a rats ass what the rest of the world thinks of the US. When ever they have a problem they call area code 202 for our money and help anyway

We liberated most of the world from dictators, and it is about time they remember that fact

Classact

11-10-2007, 06:43 PM

Actually, there was a vote on proclaiming Waterboarding as torture last year and it failed with 62 votes NO. The Democrats are saying they will present a new bill now defining torture... well I hope they put that on the top of their lists since they can't seem to get anything done anyway.

red states rule

11-10-2007, 06:44 PM

they should be uncomturble theyre trying to kill us

the libs ideas are as smart as drinking and driving.

Most libs who think we torture also think Dom Perignon is a Mafia Don

actsnoblemartin

11-10-2007, 06:50 PM

who?

Most libs who think we torture also think Dom Perignon is a Mafia Don

red states rule

11-10-2007, 06:53 PM

who?

http://www.domperignon.com/selection/domperignon-en.htm

actsnoblemartin

11-10-2007, 06:56 PM

hahaha

now i get it.:laugh2:

red states rule

11-10-2007, 06:57 PM

hahaha

now i get it.:laugh2:

You will learn the liberal mindset soon enough

actsnoblemartin

11-10-2007, 07:05 PM

what, hateful and irrational?

You will learn the liberal mindset soon enough

red states rule

11-10-2007, 07:06 PM

what, hateful and irrational?

You are getting warm

actsnoblemartin

11-10-2007, 07:09 PM

stupid and unreasonable?

un-american?, they tend to focus on americas wrong, without any acknowledgment of americas right

You are getting warm

diuretic

11-10-2007, 09:32 PM

How the hell are we "torturing" the terrorist bastards?

The SOB's are still breathing, they are gaining weight, and live better then they do in their caves

Some do not want to go back home

I for one do not give a rats ass what the rest of the world thinks of the US. When ever they have a problem they call area code 202 for our money and help anyway

We liberated most of the world from dictators, and it is about time they remember that fact

We know that many Americans don't give a toss about the rest of the world. Your nation has a reputation for being inward-looking. It's nothing to be proud of.

You didn't liberate most of the world from dictators at all. That's self-serving bullshit. You - ie the US - have INSTALLED more dictators than you removed with the assistance of others. Just in cased you forget these are the dates of WWI and WWIi - 1914-1918 amd 1939-1945. On both occasions you were late. So drop the sanctimonious crap.

Gaffer

11-10-2007, 10:25 PM

We know that many Americans don't give a toss about the rest of the world. Your nation has a reputation for being inward-looking. It's nothing to be proud of.

You didn't liberate most of the world from dictators at all. That's self-serving bullshit. You - ie the US - have INSTALLED more dictators than you removed with the assistance of others. Just in cased you forget these are the dates of WWI and WWIi - 1914-1918 amd 1939-1945. On both occasions you were late. So drop the sanctimonious crap.

Would you name the dictators we have installed.

We didn't get into the world wars until later because we didn't want to do what we are doing now. Policing the world. And the leaders of our government then we democrats. You know, the ones who don't believe in preemptive strikes to protect our selves.

We are inward looking because we don't like what we see when we look outward.

diuretic

11-10-2007, 10:53 PM

Would you name the dictators we have installed.

Certainly. But how far back do you want me to go?

We didn't get into the world wars until later because we didn't want to do what we are doing now. Policing the world. And the leaders of our government then we democrats. You know, the ones who don't believe in preemptive strikes to protect our selves.

I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem where someone makes a virtue out of a necessity though. Any nation that jumps into someone else's war their own national interests aren't at risk from that war is a led by fools. Staying out of WWI (nominally a World War only because some fighting occurred outside of Europe - ie Africa, the Middle East) was smart. The US entered WWI when her own interests were threatened. Rational policy I would have thought. I get pretty annoyed though when someone trumpets the US entry in WWI as "saving you all." If German U-boats hadn't been wandering around the US coast then it's entirely likely that the US would have never entered WWI because, as a European war, there was no reason to do so. It's a far more rational position than my country which entered WWI because "Mother England" called us and in those days Australians of indigenous birth considered themselves British citizens first and Australians second. Australia entered WWI on an ideological basis, not a practical basis.

The same reasoning applies for WWII as far as the US is concerned and as far as Australia is concerned. The declaration of war by our PM was in lock-step with Britain. He said:

DECLARATION OF WAR
THE PRIME MINISTER ROBERT MENZIES:

"Fellow Australians,
It is my melancholy duty to inform you officially that in consequence of a persistence by Germany in her invasion of Poland, Great Britain has declared war upon her and that, as a result, Australia is also at war.
No harder task can fall to the lot of a democratic leader than to make such an announcement.

Great Britain and France with the cooperation of the British Dominions have struggled to avoid this tragedy. They have, as I firmly believe, been patient. They have kept the door of negotiation open. They have given no cause for aggression.

But in the result their efforts have failed and we are therefore, as a great family of nations, involved in a struggle which we must at all costs win and which we believe in our hearts we will win."

Not much foreign policy independence there. But Australia back then was a very small nation, a whites only fortress surrounded by darkies and duskies and yellow men (the offensiveness is deliberate and meant to mirror the nation's thinking at that time) and when Mother England called, Australia sent its sons off to fight.

We are inward looking because we don't like what we see when we look outward.

No, you're inward-looking because you're self-absorbed. Now to be fair that's a gross generalisation on my part and I'll admit it. There are plenty of individual Americans who aren't but as a nation you tend to be very self-absorbed and quite indifferent to what's happening outside your borders. You're not alone in that of course but for the most powerful nation in the world, the general awareness of international affairs is abysmal.

Gaffer

11-10-2007, 11:41 PM

diuretic

11-11-2007, 02:37 AM

Go as far back as you wish. Name any dictators the US set up. Letting someone get power as a result of inaction doesn't count. Neither do people like castro who pretended to be setting up a democracy then turned it into a dictatorship.

What about suddenly noticing a dictator who's in trouble and then propping him up to prevent democracy breaking out in a country? Is that okay?

theHawk

11-11-2007, 09:06 AM

May I repeat, that TORTURE IS AGAINST THE LAW. War or not.

Even President Bush says that TORTURE is against the law, and even President Bush says that we don't TORTURE.

Are either of you, rsr or thehawk saying that this is not true?

jd

Saying "torture is against the law" is bit of a generic statement. First of all, the military doesn't torture people because of its own guidlines like LOAC. Any other laws would extend to federal government agencies, and there is no question that torture of U.S. citizens is wrong. The problem comes with jurisdiction, it may be illegal for the FBI and military to torture, but if the CIA 'outsources' the torture of a foreigner in a foreign country then the law doesn't really apply now does it?

theHawk

11-11-2007, 09:11 AM

If your troops are in the field fighting then they're fighting enemy combatants. Terrorists tend to try to avoid confronting the military, that's why they're called terrorists. They do things like plant bombs in market squares of towns in Northern Ireland or pubs in London, England.

Yes, they are enemy combatants. Mostly unlawful combatants at that.

bin Laden hasn't been caught precisely because the Bush Administration eschewed the detective work approach. Instead, it seized on an act of terror by a bunch of Saudis so that it could attack Iraq. There's a disconnect there somewhere wouldn't you think?

Fighting in the field isn't fighting terrorists (see above).

The reason for going to war with Iraq have nothing to do with the arguement of whether or not unlawful enemy combatants should get court rights equivelant to criminals in the American justice system.

theHawk

11-11-2007, 09:27 AM

DECLARATION OF WAR
THE PRIME MINISTER ROBERT MENZIES:

"Fellow Australians,
It is my melancholy duty to inform you officially that in consequence of a persistence by Germany in her invasion of Poland, Great Britain has declared war upon her and that, as a result, Australia is also at war.
No harder task can fall to the lot of a democratic leader than to make such an announcement.

Great Britain and France with the cooperation of the British Dominions have struggled to avoid this tragedy. They have, as I firmly believe, been patient. They have kept the door of negotiation open. They have given no cause for aggression.

But in the result their efforts have failed and we are therefore, as a great family of nations, involved in a struggle which we must at all costs win and which we believe in our hearts we will win."

Not much foreign policy independence there. But Australia back then was a very small nation, a whites only fortress surrounded by darkies and duskies and yellow men (the offensiveness is deliberate and meant to mirror the nation's thinking at that time) and when Mother England called, Australia sent its sons off to fight.

No, you're inward-looking because you're self-absorbed. Now to be fair that's a gross generalisation on my part and I'll admit it. There are plenty of individual Americans who aren't but as a nation you tend to be very self-absorbed and quite indifferent to what's happening outside your borders. You're not alone in that of course but for the most powerful nation in the world, the general awareness of international affairs is abysmal.

So Australia was Britian's lapdog that jumped when they told to do so. Good for you and your country.

America on the other hand had its own problems. Most people lived in poverty and could barely feed their own family so the idea of going off to fight a European war (again) wasn't a popular one.

I think its pretty ironic that your being hard on America for 'sitting it out' for too long. Some might say thats what the European countries are doing now in the war against Islam.

red states rule

11-11-2007, 04:20 PM

I would like someone to explain how terrorist meet the requirements of the GC

Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

red states rule

11-11-2007, 04:24 PM

We know that many Americans don't give a toss about the rest of the world. Your nation has a reputation for being inward-looking. It's nothing to be proud of.

You didn't liberate most of the world from dictators at all. That's self-serving bullshit. You - ie the US - have INSTALLED more dictators than you removed with the assistance of others. Just in cased you forget these are the dates of WWI and WWIi - 1914-1918 amd 1939-1945. On both occasions you were late. So drop the sanctimonious crap.

The US has liberated most of the world - fact

Without the US much of the world would have been ruled by dicators and millions more would be dead

diuretic

11-11-2007, 08:03 PM

So Australia was Britian's lapdog that jumped when they told to do so. Good for you and your country.

America on the other hand had its own problems. Most people lived in poverty and could barely feed their own family so the idea of going off to fight a European war (again) wasn't a popular one.

I think its pretty ironic that your being hard on America for 'sitting it out' for too long. Some might say thats what the European countries are doing now in the war against Islam.

Britain didn't even have to whistle, we were in there before Churchill stopped telling the Brits. We did the same during Vietnam. The US never asked us for assistance - the same PM who hopped on the Brit lap asked the US - note that, asked the US - to invite us. I don't have a problem with living up to the requirements of our alliances (eg in the case of S. Vietnam ANZUS) but I do have a problem with being a bit to quick out of the blocks. However if the US had asked us, we would have had to assist due to our treat obligations. I have no problem with that.

No, I'm not being hard on the US for sitting it out. Quite the opposite. It made complete sense to NOT get involved UNTIL the interests of the US were threatened. That's sensible foreign policy, it's good foreign policy. What I do get annoyed about are the revisors of history who want to make a virtue out of a necessity, "we saved your ass in WWI and WWII" etc. Not true in WWI but to some extent true in WWII. For example, the Battle of the Coral Sea (US v Japan navies) together with the action of our citizen soldiers in New Guinea (who inflicted the first land war defeat on Japan in WWII) saved Australia from Japanese invasion (get this) particularly when our own government had drawn up plans to retreat to the major south-eastern population centres and to cede most of the country to Japan.

I'm a realist, I like to see things portrayed as accurately as possible, warts and all.

diuretic

11-11-2007, 08:06 PM

The US has liberated most of the world - fact

Without the US much of the world would have been ruled by dicators and millions more would be dead

Hot air RSR, that's plain rubbish. History can't be reduced to a few slogans and wild claims. The US (or anyone else for that matter) isn't all good or all bad in it's foreign policy. It is - I hope - always acting out of self-interest.

You can't sustain your claims on either of those points.

JohnDoe

11-11-2007, 09:02 PM

Saying "torture is against the law" is bit of a generic statement. First of all, the military doesn't torture people because of its own guidlines like LOAC. Any other laws would extend to federal government agencies, and there is no question that torture of U.S. citizens is wrong. The problem comes with jurisdiction, it may be illegal for the FBI and military to torture, but if the CIA 'outsources' the torture of a foreigner in a foreign country then the law doesn't really apply now does it?

that seems to be the ''loophole'' that everyone is debating i suppose.

but in the ''spirit'' of the law, i would think it would be illegal for the cia also, imo if it is illegal for the military, fbi, etc.

the cia is worried about it now though, asking for congress to pass a law giving them immunity for past transgressions, or something like that...i just recently read.

jd

red states rule

11-12-2007, 05:20 AM

that seems to be the ''loophole'' that everyone is debating i suppose.

but in the ''spirit'' of the law, i would think it would be illegal for the cia also, imo if it is illegal for the military, fbi, etc.

the cia is worried about it now though, asking for congress to pass a law giving them immunity for past transgressions, or something like that...i just recently read.

jd

So JD, how would you get info from the terrorists? While the bomb ticks, or the terrorists gather to launch their attack, would you give the bastard cookies and milk,and say "pretty please"?

red states rule

11-12-2007, 05:24 AM

Hot air RSR, that's plain rubbish. History can't be reduced to a few slogans and wild claims. The US (or anyone else for that matter) isn't all good or all bad in it's foreign policy. It is - I hope - always acting out of self-interest.

You can't sustain your claims on either of those points.

I want to list the countries from tiny Grenada to the Soviet Union, threatened or ruled by communist, fascist or military dictatorships that U.S. military and technological power helped overthrow or else prevented from seizing power:
Afghanistan, Austria, Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia Czech Republic Denmark, East Germany, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Latvia ,Lithuania, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Russian, Federation, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia,South Korea, Soviet Union, Taiwan, and Turkey Ukraine

U.S. foreign policy with the 1947 Truman Doctrine saved Greece and Turkey. In 1950, U.S. military force saved South Korea, and later prevented China from invading Taiwan, today a robust democracy and an economic wonder. I would also include the overthrow of Iraq's Saddam Hussein and the ethnic dictatorship of Serbia over the rest of what was Yugoslavia. That's 37 countries and almost a billion people — 966 million, according to 1966 population statistics — living in relative freedom.

And does the easing of dictatorships in China and Vietnam stem from a sudden ascent of communist politburo virtue or could it be U.S. pressure on the question of human rights plus the need of U.S. markets and loans? Is the fact that Latin America is overwhelmingly democratic just an accidental happening?

Quite a record. What that liberation record shows is the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of American lives and billions and billions of U.S. dollars. Can any other country make such a claim? France, which collaborated with Nazi Germany and supported to the very end Saddam Hussein's foul dictatorship? France, the most anti-American country in Europe, ought to award Margaret Drabble the ribbon of the Legion of Honor. Perhaps it already has.

In any case, the United States just goes right on pursuing its unavoidable mission, fully aware, as the man said: "Gratitude is not a normal feature of political life."
http://www.usenvy.com/usbashing.html