Thread: "The US Does Not Torture"

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It is not just about people who will strongly oppose the governments's actions. It is about people who will look for any tiny little loophole to hurt the government as much as they can, even if that means hurting the citizens. It is only on extreme matters of national security that I have this stance. My view on this is limited to the military and the Department of Homeland Security. The President is the commander of the military and in charge of Homeland Security, and the pass I give him and others on use of secrecy and deception is limited to matters concerning those bodies. That does not mean they can withhold and deceive in regard to everything. In terms of military and homeland security, being upfront about absolutely everything would be incredibly dangerous, and not just because of the rabid nuts who hate us. The built in check on how far the government will go on this is the fact that the citizens elect the officials. Politicians don't want to go too far, and neither do their political parties, because the public's sympathy only goes so far. When they do go too far in the eyes of the public, they get major wrath from their constituents. So it is a matter of discretion, but we also have discretion on their futures and the futures of those who work with and for them.

So it is on sheer faith that you grant them the pardon to lie to the american people. It is a faith that their willingness to rationalize the lies only exists in matters of perceived national security. In a way, I understand where you are coming from - parents often lie to their children to "protect" them from certain things. But I'm also reminded of the movie "I, Robot" in which the robot mainframe designed to protect the humans realizes the self-destructive nature of the human race and figures its only way to protect humans from themselves is to keep them corraled as individuals and shut-off from the rest of the world.

With the election process being what it is today, are you saying that humans are smart enough to elect the person that is right to "protect them," but not smart enough to know what that person does? I disagree with that. How about the fact that those claiming they have been wrongly tortured are being denied the right to send the government to trial because the ensuing dialog in said trial could pose a "national security risk"? Is that something you condone? I'm an American citizen just like any other American citizen, though I'm probably less willing to bend over and take it from government (at their word), than many others. I was an "adventurous" teenager once, and I respect the right for some of our teens to go out and do some of the things that you and I as adults (or even parents) may not always agree with. It is a part of growing up and something that parents must learn to either safeguard against or deal with. But, when it comes to things like government-issued video cameras on every street corner, mandatory GPS chips in the public and things of that nature, there is a certain line that I'm not willing to condone crossing, even for national security. I am simply not that afraid. Like has been said, if one can give pardon to blantatly lying to the people of America for their "national security," one is giving pardon to the government to file any (possibly) malicious intent under "national security," and is basically saying that, as long as they can use that as their premise, any action can go unchecked, because it is "for the greater good."

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Irrelevant.

No. Very relevant. That is actually the reason why I started this thread.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

No, they must not tell everything. We don't need to know.

There is a moral difference between telling us something is "classified information," and blatantly lying to us.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Again, naivety is dangerous. You don't seem to grasp the weight of the situation or the nature of our enemy: at all.

See my reply to UM.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Look, we'll never agree on this. We have people crying for the reason Universal Mind mentioned. We have people crying about everything you can possibly imagine. Surely you wouldn't say that everything is wrong. The fact is that the world is full of cry-babies that will never be happy no matter what.

Those people are still Americans. That sort of reasoning is no different than the anti-liberal dialogue that permeates FOXNews. It has more prejudice than it does substance. Just because there are people that are just as passionate about being anti-corruption (even to a fault) as there are people that are passionate about pro-government (even to a fault) does not mean that Either group should be silenced and/or pacified by straight up lies by the people we elect into office.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Our most skilled soldiers are members of the special forces. They are all about performing secret operations. If their missions were announced ahead of time, they would all end up dead instead of accomplishing their missions.

I don't think anyone has implied that we need to know the missions or operations our soldiers are sent upon. What may be in question are the moral ethics and humanitarian boundaries they are allowed to cross, to get the job done. Not everyone over on that side of the globe is our enemy, and I think that, in the name of war, many of us are granting our government too much authority to see them all as such. "Kill (or torture) them all, and let God sort them out" comes to mind.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

But, when it comes to things like government-issued video cameras on every street corner, mandatory GPS chips in the public and things of that nature, there is a certain line that I'm not willing to condone crossing, even for national security. I am simply not that afraid.

I'm with you on that one, for sure.

Like has been said, if one can give pardon to blantatly lying to the people of America...

The only other alternative is to require that we receive an answer for every question posed. I'm sorry but not everything has to be answered just because the question is raised.

There is a moral difference between telling us something is "classified information," and blatantly lying to us.

I agree that they should have just used the answer "it's classified information". But even then, there will be people who consider that the same thing as lying to us because they think they have a right to know the answer.

Those people are still Americans. That sort of reasoning is no different than the anti-liberal dialogue that permeates FOXNews.

Now, the media is utterly dominated by Liberal spin and rhetoric. Conservative, such as myself, get a few lonely voices and suddenly we're "shutting every one out". I don't see it that way at all.

It has more prejudice than it does substance.

Not prejudice: the other side of the story. Or, as I like to call it: "the truth".

Just because there are people that are just as passionate about being anti-corruption (even to a fault) as there are people that are passionate about pro-government (even to a fault) does not mean that Either group should be silenced and/or pacified by straight up lies by the people we elect into office.

Exactly, that's why we need the views of the likes of Fox, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck. By the way, Glenn Beck is on a network that's also dominated by the Liberal side of things (HNN).

So a few voices of balance are certainly not an overpowering, stifling of the left, as the left want us to believe.

Look, I'm just trying to get you to understand my side of things so you cans ee why I think the government shouldn't hide things. Remember in 1984 when the country just suddenly decided it was at peace with the country it was at war with and vice versa. That's how I saw Iraq, first we were there because Iraq was a threat to us, but then we find out... they weren't much of a threat at all and it's as if that reason for entering the war just disappeared off the face of the earth and suddenly it was all about democracy. Come on, democracy? If our country really cared about democracy then why do we keep taking out democratically elected leaders and replacing them with dictators that let our companies in?

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

The only other alternative is to require that we receive an answer for every question posed. I'm sorry but not everything has to be answered just because the question is raised.

Not every question raised has to be answered but, in being a representative of the people, it is an incumbent's obligation to treat us with some sort of intellectual respect, as a nation. Don't lie to us and tell us that you're doing something you're not, or not doing something that you are, because we're "too stupid" to handle the information as a nation and opine on it. Such a governmental position can be argued as "totalitariansim."

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

I agree that they should have just used the answer "it's classified information". But even then, there will be people who consider that the same thing as lying to us because they think they have a right to know the answer.

That is a part of living in a democratic society, I'm afraid. EVERYONE has a voice, even if it's not the voice you like. (and I use "you" in reference to the Administration)

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Now, the media is utterly dominated by Liberal spin and rhetoric. Conservative, such as myself, get a few lonely voices and suddenly we're "shutting every one out". I don't see it that way at all.

Not prejudice: the other side of the story. Or, as I like to call it: "the truth".

Exactly, that's why we need the views of the likes of Fox, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck. By the way, Glenn Beck is on a network that's also dominated by the Liberal side of things (HNN).

So a few voices of balance are certainly not an overpowering, stifling of the left, as the left want us to believe.

Now that explains a lot. I am not a "left wing liberal" by any definition of the term, but I'm going to disagree with a lot of that. As someone that watches FOXNews, how often do you actually watch the other networks, as opposed to simply hearing about what they are doing from FOX? I, ritualistically, switch off between (mainly) FOX, MSNBC and CNN (by HNN, do you mean "HeadlineNewsNetwork?") and I can tell you that there are many more moderates (at least on CNN) than you give credit for. I had this same stance - though I may not have voiced it - when UM said that FOXNews is the "least biased" news network around. This was, simply, laughable to me.

I look at all media with the same sort of scrutiny, and see the stories raised much more than the views expressed on those stories. If you actually spend a day or two at a time watching each network, then you'll see many of them (like CNN which is the one I do spend the most time watching) are equally critical of both sides of the spectrum. They are hard on both sides, whereas FOX has puppet "advocates" of the left (Such as Alan Combs), set amongst a slew(sp) of hardline far-right-wingers. Most of the people on CNN (at least, I know MSNBC has a little more liberal bias) are equaly as hard on both sides, and they actually bring advocates that can competently argue both sides, to a debate. "Conservativism" is not exclusive to the likes of FOXNews. Many, now, would call much of the voices of FOXNews and the like "NeoCons," unlike Conservative representative Ron Paul, who has been equally just as shunned by FOXNews as any liberal, even though he seems to be a very grass-roots republican. FOX is the epitomy of right-wing, and the people that they bring on to argue the other side are so incompetent that even I, some average mofo that just sits back and watches, will often look at them like "WTF is wrong with you?? " In my eyes, the whole premise of FOXNews being "fair and balanced" is an absolute joke.

(And I'm sorry for the rant. This is neither here nor there, in relation to this discussion, but simply my response to your generalization that FOXNews represents not only the "opposite of left-wing" but "The Truth." I'm not here to argue which network is better, or even which political party is better, just on where we stand in regards to the Administration having the right to lie to the American people.)

On a side note, a lot of the people argueing against the government keeping secrets and torturing people are Conservatives.

Let me just state that I rarely watch Fox (FNN), mainly because I only have so much time in a day. Plus, I get so burnt out from hearing politics all day long. So I can't really vouch for all of their programming. But I'd choose them over, say, ABC or NBC, as they seem to have some level of balance. Honestly, they all seem to be reading the same Associated Press crap releases. In other words, ready-made Liberal talking points.

But most of my news is sourced from Conservative talk radio, CNN and BBC. I only really watch Glenn Beck on HNN (and sometimes Nancy Grace, but she's so forceful that I tire of her quickly). And on Fox (FNN), I watch Sean Hannity sometimes. Usually, I just catch Hannity's radio show because Alan Combs (or is it Colmbs? Not sure now.) make me want to kill babies.

Now, I used to listen to both Conservation AND Liberal talk radio. There just aren't any Liberal talk shows on that I have access to anymore. I certainly saw eye to eye much more with the Conservatives stance though. I was a regular listener of Alan Combs' show, Barry Farber and a local Liberal, Nick Ashton (though I forget now which side of the fence Barry Farber was on. It's been so long). My point is simply that I didn't just choose my side on a whim. I gave both sides a very fair shake for several years.

As far as my local Fox affiliate (Fox 13) goes: they're a bunch of ass-kissing puppets whom I can't stand to watch. They seem to be involved in a lot of the same pandering as the other mainstream media outlets.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

(by HNN, do you mean "HeadlineNewsNetwork?")

Yes.

PS: My reference to "truth and balance" in my previous post is in reference to Conservative media in general because there isn't nearly as much right wing media as there is left-leaning.

Ok. Fair enough. And I think it is actually Alan Colmbs, I just wasn't sure on the spelling at the time, just the pronuncication. But to stay away from the network vs. network, I'll simply say that, if you listen to the media, continued to listen to both sides (whenever possible). I think it's dangerous to listen to only one side, and it's only when you listen, habitually, to both sides that you hear the faults of each.

And I can't stand Nancy Grace. Haha. She is (what they'd call in the movie industry as) an over-actor, and it gets on my nerves. Heh.

[Edit: I'm watching it now and it's actually Colmes. Go figure. Haha.]

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

So it is on sheer faith that you grant them the pardon to lie to the american people. It is a faith that their willingness to rationalize the lies only exists in matters of perceived national security. In a way, I understand where you are coming from - parents often lie to their children to "protect" them from certain things. But I'm also reminded of the movie "I, Robot" in which the robot mainframe designed to protect the humans realizes the self-destructive nature of the human race and figures its only way to protect humans from themselves is to keep them corraled as individuals and shut-off from the rest of the world.

With the election process being what it is today, are you saying that humans are smart enough to elect the person that is right to "protect them," but not smart enough to know what that person does? I disagree with that. How about the fact that those claiming they have been wrongly tortured are being denied the right to send the government to trial because the ensuing dialog in said trial could pose a "national security risk"? Is that something you condone? I'm an American citizen just like any other American citizen, though I'm probably less willing to bend over and take it from government (at their word), than many others. I was an "adventurous" teenager once, and I respect the right for some of our teens to go out and do some of the things that you and I as adults (or even parents) may not always agree with. It is a part of growing up and something that parents must learn to either safeguard against or deal with. But, when it comes to things like government-issued video cameras on every street corner, mandatory GPS chips in the public and things of that nature, there is a certain line that I'm not willing to condone crossing, even for national security. I am simply not that afraid. Like has been said, if one can give pardon to blantatly lying to the people of America for their "national security," one is giving pardon to the government to file any (possibly) malicious intent under "national security," and is basically saying that, as long as they can use that as their premise, any action can go unchecked, because it is "for the greater good."

No, it is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of support for an imperfect system that is the best of all possibilities. The people will retaliate when they find out a politician or group of politicians have gone too far or allowed too much. Of course that system is not completely dependable. What would be? But I do not agree that the public needs to know everything about what the military and DHS are doing.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I don't think anyone has implied that we need to know the missions or operations our soldiers are sent upon.

You did imply that when you said the government should not be allowed to withhold information or deceive. So did several others. The special forces example shows that sometimes it is necessary. That example encompasses a huge percentage of the special cases I am talking about.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

What may be in question are the moral ethics and humanitarian boundaries they are allowed to cross, to get the job done. Not everyone over on that side of the globe is our enemy, and I think that, in the name of war, many of us are granting our government too much authority to see them all as such. "Kill (or torture) them all, and let God sort them out" comes to mind.

I definitely have limits on what I think is acceptable in that area. I don't think we are treating the Middle East as our enemy. I think we are liberating it. We are treating the oppressors of the Middle East as enemies. And we are going through a whole lot of bullshit in order to make that happen when we could easily turn that part of the world into a sheet of glass. That is what Al Qaeda would do to us in two seconds if they could, and that is the sort of element we are fighting.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

But I do not agree that the public needs to know everything about what the military and DHS are doing.

Neither do I. But I don't agree that we need to be blatantly lied to.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You did imply that when you said the government should not be allowed to withhold information.

I don't remember saying that. Please highlight where I did.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I definitely have limits on what I think is acceptable in that area. I don't think we are treating the Middle East as our enemy. I think we are liberating it. We are treating the oppressors of the Middle East as enemies. And we are going through a whole lot of bullshit in order to make that happen when we could easily turn that part of the world into a sheet of glass. That is what Al Qaeda would do to us in two seconds if they could, and that is the sort of element we are fighting.

We don't really see eye to eye on the focus of Al-Qaeda. There have been reports of Al-Qaeda operatives denouncing the attacks on, say, innocent women and children, to make their point.

I could be wrong (and believe me, I'm open to it), but I believe there might be some distortion put out on the focus of Al Qaeda. And I could very easily be flamed for this, but I don't know that, if they had the means to, they would do something like drop a few dozen hydrogen bomb s on the US and wipe everyone out. I'm sure that goes against everything that everyone on your side of this conversation believes and, hell, it may be against objective logic, itself, but I'm just not too sure on that yet.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Neither do I. But I don't agree that we need to be blatantly lied to.

I don't remember saying that. Please highlight where I did.

Woops. Alric and Omnius Deus said that, not you. Sorry. You just think we should not be lied to, not that we should not have information kept from us. I see now.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

We don't really see eye to eye on the focus of Al-Qaeda. There have been reports of Al-Qaeda operatives denouncing the attacks on, say, innocent women and children, to make their point.

Any member of Al Qaeda who feels that way is in the wrong club. Why would they be members of an organization that has already done lots of that? Their leaders promote it and engage in it.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I could be wrong (and believe me, I'm open to it), but I believe there might be some distortion put out on the focus of Al Qaeda. And I could very easily be flamed for this, but I don't know that, if they had the means to, they would do something like drop a few dozen hydrogen bomb s on the US and wipe everyone out. I'm sure that goes against everything that everyone on your side of this conversation believes and, hell, it may be against objective logic, itself, but I'm just not too sure on that yet.

Their whole mission is to make Americans extinct.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=1&gl=us

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=5&gl=us

My personal opinion is that Al Qaeda believes they could have a really huge amount of power to turn much of the world into an Islamic state if the United States did not exist. They despise us on many, many levels and want us to cease to exist. They are the Muslim version of Nazis.

Honestly, I see nothing in those articles but an acknowledgement of our occupation in the middle eastern nations and a subsequent feeling of (whether misguided or not) self-defense on the part of Al-Qaeda, in that they are only fighting for an end to our occupation. It is on this premise (as far as I see) that they have put out the call to "kill Americans wherever they lie." Were we not meddling in their affairs (again, I'm not saying whether we were "right" or "wrong" to do so), I do not see them as just some intrinsic faction that exists soley for our erradication. They (under the "authority" granted to them by their religion) seem to feel that they are acting on a level of self defense. We have been over there waging a decades-old campaign that has killed many of their civilians and (from their perspective) they are fighting back.
Misguided though they may or may not be, I'm still not convinced that this is just some faction that exists solely for the purpose for taking us out, or even spreading their religion internationally, by force, were it not for our occupation.

We base many of our actions on the concept of September 11th and feel that, since they were consciously able to kill 3,000 of us (and by interpretations of subsequent dialog), they exist only for the entire destruction of all people and things American. Is it impossible that 9/11 was a (albeit very grave) message of warning? If (think about this for a second) it was, and their main objective is simply to be left alone in their own world (at least, militarily), how would we know, now that we have spread the word among our nation that their only mission is to destroy is all, while we downplay the fact that most of their spite comes from our long-standing occupation of their land?

According to those articles, Al Qaeda calls for the killing of Americans wherever we are. Bin Laden has flat out declared it. One of those sources is PBS, which is is as liberal as it gets without just flat out lying. The articles don't focus on the reasons Al Qaeda hates us outside of our Middle East occupation, but the point is that Al Qaeda is not out to reason with us or to have debates among themselves about what types of Americans are fair game for being murdered. They want to kill Americans. And the response to Q2 in Bin Laden's letter shows that it is for reasons far beyond our Middle East occupation. They want to kill us, period, and their leader has declared that their war with us will last until we satisfy a very long list of extremely unrealistic demands.

Yeah, I understand that it can be interpreted this way, and I'm not saying that you're wrong. But, if it is our occupation that has driven them to this level of violence, then our occupation is something that we most seriously (re)consider. And, the way I see it (simply my interpretation so far), the answer to Q2 is more a "and while we're at it, here is a complete list of the initial beef we have with you" statement. Maybe it's a stretch for me to feel as such, but I'm not ruling it out (and, therefore, not basing any judgement on that alone), given all context of their belief to adhering(sp) strictly to their religion, which is supposed to be one of (unless provoked) peace, and from statements I've heard that have denounced the killing of innocent civilians in their campaign. I'm simply trying to take all things into account, not just what we are being lead to believe.

President Bush said "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Am I to believe that, since I don't agree with everything the Administration has been doing, I should feel like I should be looked at as a terrorist sympathizer, or that that statement to the American people might have been some over-the-top cowboy rhetoric that (while, possibly, well-intended) should not be taken completely literally? If the latter is the case, should we not be open to the possibility of Bin Laden's letter containing the same sort of propaganda?