2 good moves by Obama. Can we get a 3rd???
- Thread starter conntom
- Start date
RideRocket
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2005
- Posts
- 3,009
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 49
- Points
- 268
- Location
- Arlington, VA, USA
- Sexuality
- 80% Straight, 20% Gay
- Gender
- Male
It's a euphemism for torture, prohibited by American and international law and the Geneva Convention, as if the inhumane treatment of prisoners weren't enough of a deterrant.
It's a term invented by the Bush administration to skirt the laws and make the torture of detainees sound nicer.
Last edited:
We don't need to show photos of a guy with his head blown off - as much as I am glad his head was blown off - at least partly. It was necessary, I'm glad we did it. We do not need to display it. He was a father to some kids - a husband to some - a family member to others. We don;t need to release the photos.
Illegal EIT's? No such thing in my book if it is to protect this country, her citizens, her interests or her troops.
Geneva convention. You mean that paper that is mostly ignored by the whole world? Sorry my friend. Fight fire with fire. I'd be all for the Geneva convention if everyone actually did adhere to it.
But this is the real world. Democrats and liberals like to ignore that simple fact.
I can see video of a former president being shot in the head. Why can"t I see one image (if I choose to) of a "terrorist" that we supposedly killed? I'm not saying that it should be all over the news, but if Americans are requesting to see, then they should be able to. If the media plasters it all over video and print, then that's a different problem altogether. I don't see how releasing a photo would be any worse for our national security than people gathering in the streets to celebrate. I would also like to believe that pictures could have been (or were) taken that aren't of such "graphic nature." Certainly not as graphic as Kennedy's head exploding.
I'm not even going to get in to EITs. Maxcok covered that.
B_VinylBoy
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
- Posts
- 10,363
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 70
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Boston, MA / New York, NY
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Which fact? That there is no such thing as a perfect country that always follows the rules? That there will always be a small handful of disgusting who would ignore the Geneva Conventions? Or that you think Democrats and Liberals have no clue what is going on in the world? For your sake, I will assume that you really didn't mean the last one.
Ultimately, it's up to every individual to decide for themselves whether or not they're going to follow the rules or not. Humane people understand this and follow them. Inhumane people, driven by their paranoias and selfishness, think of every excuse in the world to not follow them. If you feel that we should not follow the Geneva Conventions due to the actions of the lunatic fringe of any country, then so be it. Just keep in mind, to come to that conclusion makes you no better than the people you claim to be against. And that disqualifies you from judging ANYONE'S character or intelligence.
B_nyvin
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2009
- Posts
- 399
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 23
- Points
- 103
- Age
- 40
- Location
- Pensacola FL
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
That's disgusting. Just think of it this way...if we do it to them we're saying it's justified for them to do it to us.
Civilized nations and civilized people adhere to the Geneva Convention. If we're going to claim the moral high ground, we must not only adhere to it, but set an example for other nations. Anyone who advocates for torture is a hypocrite and no better than our enemies. "Fighting fire with fire" only adds to the problem, puts our own citizens and servicemembers in harms way, gives our enemies permission to do the same, shows us to be bullies and hypocrites, stokes hatred for the US, serves as a recruitment tool for extremists, and exponentially adds to our enemies list. Finally, it rarely if ever provides reliable, actionable intelligence, intelligence that can otherwise be obtained by proven psychological techniques.
"Fighting fire with fire" at the end of the day will consume us all. It's a stupid self-defeating platitude spouted by ideological idiots.
Could you please stop your blind idiotic partisan sniping? If you want some "simple facts" about the "real world" you need to turn off the rightwing propaganda feed, starting first of all with Faux "news" and rightwing radio, where you passively absorb your daily shitload of "phacts" posing as facts. Simple "phacts" are for simple minds.
In the wake of President Obama's biggest foreign policy victory to date, Republicans have gone out of their way not to give the commander-in-chief too much credit for taking out Osama bin Laden. They are even using the opportunity to burnish George W. Bush's tarnished reputation and validate discredited "enhanced interrogation" techniques used to torture detainees overseas.
The early evidence, however, cast doubt on the notion that torture was integral to finding and killing bin Laden. According to the Associated Press, the courier who tipped off the CIA about Bin Laden’s location had been questioned using standard interrogation techniques, not "enhanced" ones. Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said that "it was not harsh treatment and it was not waterboarding" that yielded critical information on Bin Laden’s whereabouts.
There are a few detractors within the Republican Party when it comes to the notion that Bush's enhanced interrogation helped the US. "This idea we caught Bin Laden because of waterboarding is a misstatement," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC.) told reporters on Tuesday. "I do not think this is a time for celebrating waterboarding." He added, "The problems at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib caused us great misery, and it was a recruiting tool."
Still the meme that "waterboarding works" entered the political bloodstream less than 24 hours after the news of Bin Laden's death, supported by Graham's GOP colleagues and echoed by the right-wing blogosphere. One Bush-era official famously said, "we create our own reality." So it appears do the GOP's torture apologists.
The early evidence, however, cast doubt on the notion that torture was integral to finding and killing bin Laden. According to the Associated Press, the courier who tipped off the CIA about Bin Laden’s location had been questioned using standard interrogation techniques, not "enhanced" ones. Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said that "it was not harsh treatment and it was not waterboarding" that yielded critical information on Bin Laden’s whereabouts.
There are a few detractors within the Republican Party when it comes to the notion that Bush's enhanced interrogation helped the US. "This idea we caught Bin Laden because of waterboarding is a misstatement," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC.) told reporters on Tuesday. "I do not think this is a time for celebrating waterboarding." He added, "The problems at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib caused us great misery, and it was a recruiting tool."
Still the meme that "waterboarding works" entered the political bloodstream less than 24 hours after the news of Bin Laden's death, supported by Graham's GOP colleagues and echoed by the right-wing blogosphere. One Bush-era official famously said, "we create our own reality." So it appears do the GOP's torture apologists.
Last edited:
Right, because as soon as he releases such photographs, all doubters and deniers will be satisfied with them and will demand no further proof, as recent experience has abundantly shown.
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2009
- Posts
- 1,170
- Media
- 35
- Likes
- 1,467
- Points
- 308
- Location
- Denver (Colorado, United States)
- Verification
- View
- Gender
- Male
Right, because as soon as he releases such photographs, all doubters and deniers will be satisfied with them and will demand no further proof, as recent experience has abundantly shown.
A good point... it would just be grounds for another conspiracy theory... a Zapruder film for the Generation Z crowd.
President Obama announced that the pictures of Osama bin Laden are not trophies to be displayed, as the NYT reported today. He went on to say that we didn't need to "spike the football". Apparently the thirst for blood and gore has gotten the better of some journalists. Even some reputable news organizations have been duped into publishing fake pictures, as seen in Monday's Observer.
Back to the OP... I'm not so sure that I agree that we need the President to now endorse torture... why would we? We're Americans. We think differently and our actions reflect our code of moral conduct. I think the President thinks that way, too: he laid out American policy specifically on that subject in January 2009 and I don't see that changing just because we've managed to get OBL.
Right, because as soon as he releases such photographs, all doubters and deniers will be satisfied with them and will demand no further proof, as recent experience has abundantly shown.
Will it stop all the doubters and deniers? No, nothing will stop ALL the doubters and deniers. Will it satisfy some Americans' legitimate curiosity? I think so, but there will always be doubters. I see it as historical evidence that should be available to any American.
The fact that they won't release the photo is suspect. Does it mean "conspiracy?" Not necessarily, but it is suspect none the less.
I'm curious what your reasoning for not releasing them is?
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2009
- Posts
- 1,170
- Media
- 35
- Likes
- 1,467
- Points
- 308
- Location
- Denver (Colorado, United States)
- Verification
- View
- Gender
- Male
Please read the preceding post. The President explains pretty clearly why he's not releasing them. There isn't anything 'suspect' in trying to show restraint and exercise decorum.
It serves no legitimate interest, it is ghoulish and undignified, and it was judged by all those concerned in national security to aggravate the danger of terroristic acts against Americans.
Dancing in the streets and celebrating someone's death is equivalent to "spiking the football."
Showing one photograph of a real event is equivalent to "showing the replay," and that happens all the time.
Yet all over our media broadcasts were images of celebrating Americans similar to the images that were showed of Muslim's celebrating after 9/11. Not only did we "spike the football" we ran over to the sidelines and gave em the bird. We were allowed to see footage of "them" killing thousands of Americans, how can one photograph be any worse or more graphic?
