Hardly. At no point has anyone here presented a position that we should be as "barbaric" as the enemy.
That is your perspective on what has been posted. I see nothing but an excuse to do what ever is deemed expedient to achieve the desired ends. And, when the intel we get is flawed, and we kill a few hundred innocents, well, shit happens doesn't it?
Where is the definition you and those on the "no rights for some humans under US government complete control" side of this issue subscribe to? It seems that there is none - just the assurance that whatever is done is justified because those terrorists, however that must be defined for the moment, apparently, don't deserve from our government what our Constitution states are the unalienable rights endowed by their creator. Our government made a commitment to recognize these rights and in that statement makes no mention of this recognition being limited by citizenship, or just who ever might be labeled a "terrorist" by someone anointed with that authority by the President.
I see this Carte Blanche policy as the easy way out. There is no bottom to hit until we are worse than our enemy and then there is no evidence that becoming more barbaric than our enemies as long as it is perceived as saving an American life, will be rejected. Remember, we have bombed schools, hospitals and embassies by "mistake" in some cases and because we thought our intel sources told us there was bad shit going on in those locations, already.
You are also wrong that the discussion is "not connected to the original issue" unless it's your essay that's considered not connected.
What is not connected is the discussion of torture at remote facilities, the originating thread's topic, being justified by the situation each combat soldier faces when on duty in Iraq. The two situations are not connected, so the logic that says in one case the soldier makes a split second decision on what to do, vs. the other situation where multiple rounds of attempts to break a suspect down by torture are carried out in relative safety.
No one contends that it's OK to blow up civilians, behead people, etc. What we contend is that while distasteful, "waterboarding" is not the worst thing that could happen to an enemy combatant in the process of extracting intel from him. It's far from "sinking to lowest possible level of humanity". As usual, you have tried to read much more into what was posted.
Show me where you define the limits of what might be considered acceptable. What I read was a suggestion that if it works (meaning, I guess, the victim talks) it is ok, regardless of what "it" is. As already noted, we have killed many thousands more civilians in Iraq than 9-11 took American lives. In fact, we have sent more American soldiers to their deaths than the number of Americans that died in the 9-11 horror. I see very little remorse or introspective review of the thought processes that have taken us to a point where we find the value of human life different depending on the location the particular human calls home. Apparently collateral damage that kills innocent Iraqis by the thousands per year is acceptable, even when it is the result of actions taken in response to intel gathered through torture.
It's not my "flawed solution" to anything. It's what needs to be done.
Ahhh, so in your own words, if you perceive "what needs to be done" is murdering women and children in Iraq (seems we have already done this, and are directly responsible for setting the conditions for insurgents to continue that practice at a much accelerated rate), or beheading, or whatever, so be it.
"My policy" is not "short sighted" because I don't set policy, nor is it my goal to "justify a policy of illegal intervention in other nation's internal affairs".
Great, so is it more accurate to say the the policy you defend, and therefore seem to have adopted as your own? Good. Consider the words changed.
You say that "We don't do that to mass murders, child molesters, rapists or any other kind of criminal in America, no matter how horrid their crime." Correct. They are AMERICANS as you point out and deserve better. The ENEMY is just that, and do not deserve the protections afforded our citizens. Again, while horrific and distasteful, I'll never lose a wink over this knowing it can and does save the lives of our men in the field. You just do not get it and never will.
This is the fundamental argument - I don't subscribe to the fact that a captured enemy, who is no longer a direct threat to any American soldiers because we have him locked up, out of the country, unable to communicate with the outside world, is not subject to treatment that recognizes our founding father's standard of treatment of such people under our government's control. They have inalienable rights endowed by their creator because our nation's premise is that all men were created equal. The only real difference is which governments recognize these rights for what they are. Our Constitution says America recognizes such rights, and makes no mention of citizenship being a prerequisite. The choice of words, specifically, "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL" seems to very clearly establish "all men" and not "some men, namely those granted citizenship by birth or through naturalization" as the ones with inalienable rights to be recognized by the United States Government.
Your suggested interpretation overtly values American lives and rights greater than all other humans on earth. I do not see any support in the Constitution for that interpretation, and would find such an interpretation to lead to isolation and further loss of stature in the world community. Jim