06-15-2007, 03:52 PM | #41 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between Iraq and a hard place
Posts: 7,569
|
We have infinitely more constitutional mechanisms, safeguards, checks & balances and so forth than 1930 Germany. To assert we're on some slippery slope towards Nazism is ignorant hyperbole at its worst.
|
06-15-2007, 03:53 PM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,084
|
That is what I was trying to say, I agree
Good post
|
06-15-2007, 03:56 PM | #43 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Quote:
WWI by the way was not the clear good vs. evil conflict paradigm that was WWII or the Cold War or the Civil War. It was on both sides about power politics. There were no white hats in WWI. In other words, you could make the case that the Gestapo had at least in their own minds much the same rationalizations cited by those who support Bush's torturing.
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
|
06-15-2007, 03:57 PM | #44 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
Quote:
If you say no, then we are at odds. It baffles me, that a man in a freaking cave in Pakistan has caused some people to throw the Constitution in the toilet. |
|
06-15-2007, 03:57 PM | #45 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
I am surprised by this thread. BYU71 did you read the Sullivan piece? The simialrities between the Gestapo memo and our approach are startling. Are we Nazis? Of course not but that doesn't detract from the rather disturbing questions being raised here.
POlitically I am relatively conservative. I supported the invasion of Afghanistan and I supported the invasion of Iraq, which I have now come to see as a mistake, but I cannot condmen the deicison to invade (another long story). The torture issue is very difficult. There is the question of whether or not torture is used. The definition is difficult and I can certainyl see that. But for our governemtn to systematically engage in questionable interrogation techiniques agaisnt incarerated persons over years at a facility established to more easily avoid scrutiny by courts and citizens is very disturbing. There can be no doubt that many people in the world want to hurt "us." And we clearly have the right to defend outrselves, but at what cost? We have lost tremendous respect throughout the world as a result of Iraq and Gitmo. I am afraid that price is already paid to large degree. The cost we are now facing is the loss of commitment to basic principles of freedom within our own society and system. We can be cavalier about this and make jokes about it and assert their are logical fallacies but the fact remains that my kids are growing up in a world where the USA has institutionalized "enhanced interrogation techiniques" and, like it or not, and distinguish it or not, these techniques are precisely those used by the Gestapo against Norwegian freedom fightrers and others. I do not propose that I have all the answers, but I find it hard to believe that anyone that cares about our society and is passionate about the ideals that make this nation worth saving can see this information and not stop to deeply consider the propriety of our approach. Morever, if we err, we shoudl err in favor of civil liberty and freedom. That has always been our presumption and the actual implementation of this presumption in our daily lives is exactly why this country is great. Many nations, after all, have espoused these same principles in their establishing documents (e.g. the USSR), but only one modern nation actually implemented them in a practical and meaningful way and the loss of that edge, the tip of the scale away from that operational presumption, is a price that cannot be paid for to lose it is to lose what we are. There is a risk that without torture we may lose lives from a terrorist attack. This is true (although one might say that the blood of such persons would serve to feed the roots of the tree off liberty, slightly modifying Jefferson's famous analogy) . And there may come a time when in some specific instance and under some specific circumstance enhanced techniques are justified. I would certainyl allow for that. But the general acceptance of this approach must, I think, be avoided or esle we risk losing what we are and we will become what we seek to avoid with no cost to the other side whatsoever. Sorry for the rant.
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos. Last edited by creekster; 06-15-2007 at 04:05 PM. |
06-15-2007, 03:58 PM | #46 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Gotham City
Posts: 7,157
|
Quote:
But I am convinced that fifty-sixty years out we will look on this as a dark and embarrassing period in our nation's history, much as we regard the treatment of Japanese-Americans during WWII. That, too, was deemed an abridgment of rights both justified and necessary, and in retrospect I think we all agree that it was neither. |
|
06-15-2007, 03:58 PM | #47 |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
yes, and we want to keep them in place. That's the point. This is what I mean by taking our liberties for granted.
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
06-15-2007, 03:59 PM | #48 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,175
|
It baffles me how you insist on minimizing Bin Laden's threat to the U.S. At least refer to him as a terrorist. I prefer to remember he's responsible for the deaths of 2000+ Americans. Worst attack on the U.S. mainland ever.
|
06-15-2007, 04:03 PM | #49 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
Quote:
I don't want to become a fundamentalist state in order to beat a fundamentalist organization/threat. |
|
06-15-2007, 04:04 PM | #50 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,175
|
Quote:
I merely stated you minimize the threat whenever possible and I don't know why you feel the need to. |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|