Cmitch, this is a poorly constructed argument regardless of the cheerleading you are getting from the peanut gallery. No one is suggesting our national security is second to ensuring our enemies are treated with the utmost care and understanding, which the foundation of your fabricated argument. Once removed, your argument falls flat, making your argument one of convenience.
Poorly constructed argument? You squirm in your chair and subject yourself with guilt because interrogation techniques that make you feel uncomfortable are employed. Wake up, Jim. This is not a bargaining table! These people have made their intentions clear! Death to America. I AM suggesting that if you handle our enemies as if they are citizens of the U.S. subject to the same rights as you and I, then you are taking a back seat to national security. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS! We're either in the fight or not.
Originally Posted by JimSmith
The issue here is investing in what makes America unique and great. You and certain others, would, apparently, give that up for convenience, expedience and vengance. The easy way out. Which, in the long run, regardless of how deservedly uncomfortable you perceive it makes our enemies, is specifically eroding our national treasure of lives given for the idealistic principles of our Constitution, such as the basic premise enunciated without any condition of nationality therein that "all men are created equal." The idea that our founding fathers would find your preposterous proposal that only citizens of the United States of America are to be treated by our government, when in the complete control of our government, in a manner that recognizes and respects the inalienable rights they are endowed with by their creator valid, just doesn't stand up to any logical examination. The only interruption at our borders in the recognition of those inalienable rights is due to the behavior of other governments.
There will be no America to be great if our military is told we can no longer use techniques that have worked for centuries to gain access to information as to who wishes to harm us. So, applying these techniques is not the 'easy way out'. It's the only way out. How do you propose we modify our information gaining techniques so as not to make a few bleeding hearts uncomfortable? It is perfectly logical to examine the Constitution of the U.S. and see that it was written for the citizens of this country and the residents, immigrants, etc. Your argument that it was established to guarantee rights to those who wish to harm us from offshore, they were captured offshore and brought HERE by us for whatever reasons they found fit to do so, is the argument that falls flat. Furthermore, these detainees have no government organization because they are terrorists who employ battle techniques very unfamiliar to what we deem as appropriate battlefield behavior. So, I'm sorry that you feel that our rules shouldn't be modified and changed to meet this new threat. And I am really disturbed you're ready to open up the COTUS to grant these terrorists rights that are NOT due them. Cut it and slice it all you want, Jim, but they are NOT due the rights guaranteed to you and I. It's the Constitution of the United States. Not the Constitution of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.
Originally Posted by JimSmith
And, the real issue at hand here is the use of torture to extract information from these individuals. The fact is the issue being taken has nothing really to do with making "our enemies" feel better instead of worse, and that it has everything to do with maintaining the faith Americans have in their government, and rebuilding the image America has enjoyed in the past, over the globe. This perspective seems to be lost in your discussion or not considered at all. Besides, other than in Hollywood shows, it would seem the practical result is, torture does little more than force people to talk while degrading the self image Americans have of their government. What the victims of state sanctioned torture you advocate say while being tortured has to be validated by other means, as, under duress people inclined to fold under torture say what ever they believe will make the torture stop. Not a particularly reliable source of information, and in the grand scheme of things, a really bad bargain for America's security. We would be much better served by acts that build our image inside and outside of our borders. But down deep I think you already know that. Jim
Again I ask, what do you propose we do to extract the information? You are gleaning your information from the news media and then building an argument on it. You seen pictures of the hapless terrorists stripped naked, wired to a 'telephone' and tormented. You also seen pictures of terrorists made to simulate sex acts by Lindy England and her cohorts. Is this the kind of methods you think I approve of? Who is Lindy England to determine what techniques should be employed? She was a PFC with no experience in these matters. A thug in uniform, if you so wish to call her. Those are the things that got out and are shameful. But now the argument moves on to legitimate techniques, that are being compared to the useless behavior of the soldiers who made sport of the prisoners. I'm for legitimate techniques by legitimately trained military intelligence. Please forgive my facetious comments concerning Edith Bunker. Truly a torment no one deserves.