[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by finboy 

You seem to misunderstand. My principles aren't flexible. They've been the same for many years now, through good and bad times. Known terrorists, "freedom fighters" and enemies of the state (or me) forfeit a large part of their rights merely by committing acts of violence. Acts of violence must be answered accordingly with more violence. People who want me and/or other innocents dead are opening themselves to violent and deadly termination before they can exercise their particular methods. This is PART OF MY VALUE SYSTEM, not something I rush to out of desperation.

"Evil must be stopped right the f*ck now" is a core value of mine. Biker friends of mine call that "sh*t comes back tenfold" or the "don't screw with us" rule. This whole thing of "if we do that, we're just as bad as THEY are" is pure bullsh*t. THEY advocate killing random innocents; I advocate killing/torturing for information the guilty BECAUSE OF their behavior and threat to everyone's happiness. If that makes us "the same as them" then I can only imagine the cognitive challenges you must overcome each day.

I'm not asking you to trust me, or anyone else, or to be proud. I am pointing out, however, that your rosy attitude on this is notwithstanding the fact that people are out there hunting and killing in your name so you can stay safe -- right this very minute. Feel however you'd like to about "torture," but it keeps you safe at night whether you like it or not. Just be intellectually honest about this, that's all.

There is no intellectual dishonesty at all. I am quite aware of the "rough men ready to do violence on my behalf". And I am quite appreciative of those men and women willing to do so. But appreciating the men and women in the US military "hunting and killing in [my] name so [I] can stay safe" does not mean I want them to do so indiscriminately, without orders and oversight from their superiors. Appreciating the men and women in the US military does not mean I think they should be ordered to perform any type of action to try and protect me as a citizen. Appreciating the men and women in the US military does not mean it is impossible to comprehend and appreciate what our armed forces do to protect us and our values while simultaneously being opposed to the practice of torture.

There is no cognitive dissonance necessary to be able to both support our armed forces in their efforts to protect us and being opposed to the practice of torture*. I would argue the opposite is the more likely scenario. I would argue that it takes cognitive dissonance to think that the US government can protect our lives, our values, and our principles while violating them through the practice of torture.

*That being said, I doubt very much that any of our men or women in uniform (or in the intelligence-gathering apparatus) have actually made me safer by engaging in the torture of captured prisoners from the War on Terror.

Originally Posted by finboy 

Finally, let's address the evil government thing.

Do I have the individual right to interrogate someone if they have credibly threatened me or intend to kill me or others? Yes, absent the state doing it in an organized fashion with due process. It's part of self-defense. I sure as heck can torture someone to discover where they're keeping my kidnapped wife or where they've planted the bomb.

Except you don't have that right. I can assure you if you decided to torture someone holding hostage a spouse or sibling you would be arrested and charged with a crime EVEN IF the state failed to do so "in an organized fashion with due process". That type of behavior is vigilantism and in our society of laws we do not accept vigilantism as acceptable behavior by citizens.

One final question. Is there anything you would NOT want the government to do on your behalf to try and keep you safe? Can you think of any method, tactic, or practice that you would not want the government to use in their attempts to keep you safe? Or do you think anything and everything is acceptable if it means keeping you safe?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Well, I'm a citizen of the state of Tennessee, and it just happens to be part of the United States of America.

Umm, last time I checked--I was just in Tennessee five days ago, had a blast in the Smokies--it was still part of the United States. So, do you not identity yourself as a citizen of both Tennessee and the United States? Or do you just identify yourself as a citizen of the state of Tennessee and don't care about its part/role in the nation that is the United States? Or, are you proud to be a citizen of Tennessee but ashamed Tennessee is part of the United States? Just how do you identify yourself as a citizen of a state without also including identification with the nation of which said state is a member?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

For those of you who think torture is an acceptable method for use by the US government to protect us, is there anything you would consider not an acceptable means of use by the US government to protect us?

In other words, what do you think it is not acceptable for the US government to do in their efforts to try and protect us. If there is nothing you would find unacceptable then say that as well.

I just want to quote this so the questions appears on page 2 and doesn't get overlooked. And so those who support the US engaging in torture can answer it and tell us what, if anything, they would not want the US government to do to try and protect them.

[BadKosh]

Bla bla bla. So under what circumstances is it "OK" to let citizens die to protect our image? WHY would you want to live in a place where image is so much more important than life?

[besson3c]

Under what conditions would we have to make that choice, BadKosh?

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Bla bla bla. So under what circumstances is it "OK" to let citizens die to protect our image? WHY would you want to live in a place where image is so much more important than life?

It's not about protecting our image, it's about protecting our values. (incidentally, the word "image" did not appear in this thread until your post, so I think you are making stuff up and projecting it on the other side of the argument.)

[BadKosh]

I would feel proud knowing that my country committed torture to protect me. I would wonder why our leaders would let people die when they may be able to get info that would be helpful in preventing deaths. The bad guys are designated as such for a reason. They are not college kids busted for growing pot, but trained to kill westerners, and they are NOT working alone. They already hate our guts. Being nice, civil and sitting down to tea with such people would NOT get you any info.

Their opinion of us was most likely based on fiction from the press. Perhaps this would be a better place to start when dealing with those who hate us. Perhaps some truth from the press...........Yeah, right!

[besson3c]

Kosh: so you don't trust this government, yet you feel comfortable with them deciding when they are "protecting" you? You give them blanket authorization to "protect you", no matter what it takes? Where does this end? Are you willing to give up all of your liberties in the name of the government saying they are protecting you?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Bla bla bla. So under what circumstances is it "OK" to let citizens die to protect our image? WHY would you want to live in a place where image is so much more important than life?

Whose talking about image? I am, and have been, talking about values. You are the first one to mention the image of the US in this discussion. I am talking about the values and principles of US society that says torture is not acceptable (and more important, not necessary) in a modern democracy. I am talking about the values and principles of US society that says if we wish to hold onto the mantle of standard-bearer for representative democracy we should not, we MUST NOT, compromise our principles for the sake of safety.


And all this talk about the value of our principles does not even take into account the issue of whether or not torture actually works. But whether or not it did work, I do not want this country using torture. I think our military and intelligence apparatus is more than capable of keeping us safe as a nation without the need to resort to torture.


<edit>
Looks like Dork. beat me to the point about the debate being about values and principles and not about "image".

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Bla bla bla. So under what circumstances is it "OK" to let citizens die to protect our image? WHY would you want to live in a place where image is so much more important than life?

IT IS NOT ABOUT IMAGE. IT IS ABOUT PRINCIPLES AND VALUES WE HOLD DEAR AS A NATION. AAARRGGHHHH!!!

[besson3c]

What I've never understood is why some people are happy to give the government a pretty broad ranging free pass and enough trust to "protect us", yet freak out when you mention the possibility of trusting the government to be a part of our health care. Don't let the greatly feared terrorists kill me, but it's okay if I can't afford my own surgery and/or my insurance company balks on paying the bill.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

IT IS NOT ABOUT IMAGE. IT IS ABOUT PRINCIPLES AND VALUES WE HOLD DEAR AS A NATION. AAARRGGHHHH!!!

So what does this have to do with Principles:

"I would feel proud knowing that my country committed torture to protect me. "

Isn't the question about Pride?

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What I've never understood is why some people are happy to give the government a pretty broad ranging free pass and enough trust to "protect us", yet freak out when you mention the possibility of trusting the government to be a part of our health care. Don't let the greatly feared terrorists kill me, but it's okay if I can't afford my own surgery and/or my insurance company balks on paying the bill.

these are different problems caused by the tax-n-spend Dems. Perhaps its better that we don't try and protect ourselves against terrorists? Perhaps we shouldn't capture any suspected terrorists or ever question them. Perhaps just killing them and dumping the bodies into the sea is better. No Former captives telling the world how bad it was, or having to fund prisons, or having the red cross stick their liberal noses into the mix.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

So what does this have to do with Principles:

"I would feel proud knowing that my country committed torture to protect me. "

Isn't the question about Pride?

Umm, since when did Pride=Image?

Being proud of your country for committing torture to keep you safe is being proud that your country (the United States) backed down on one of its key principles--support for the rule of law above all else--and being proud that your country, which claims to be the standard-bearer for representative democracy all over the world, acted in a manner typical of dictators and tyrants, not representative democracies.

[dcmacdaddy]

@BadKosh,

Please answer the question below. I have posted it twice now and am curious to see what, if any, limits you think there should be on the US government in its efforts to protect us.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Is there anything you would consider not an acceptable means of use by the US government to protect us?

In other words, what do you think it is not acceptable for the US government to do in their efforts to try and protect us?