Well that makes Obama a thief who steels what exactly? What’s the going rate for human beings?
they were waterboarded to prepare them for enhanced interrogation techniques. Your scale above isn’t millions and billions. It’s a handful of dollars versus billions.
That’s a bit of a false dichotomy, as the Drone War is not set up to kill civilians, specifically. However, we do (at times) target “high value” individuals knowing full well that there are civilians present and that they will be killed. Those civilians cannot be said to have been killed accidentally, even if they weren’t specifically targeted.
Wow, that’s a serious case of denial. It’s a given that a missile sent into a crowd of people is going to kill most or all of them.
Seriously, you have to twist yourself backwards to ignore this.
A false dilemma, being indignant about drone attacks does not prevent us from being indignant about torture, particularly when one realizes that a lot of the current drone attacks are there thanks to the results of the Iraq invasion that took place (in part) thanks to false information obtained with torture.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/12/09/live-coverage-release-senate-torture-report
There is also the reality that a few of the former and current people in charge of the torture continue to claim they did a good thing, so torture tactics can still be used by future policymakers. It is important to teach those future leaders that continue to believe in the lottery fallacy that is coming from torture that they need to tell all their departments that torture will not be justified.
I don’t like war. And I know that happens. But the nature of explosives is they don’t discriminate. Magiver was brewing some goofy stuff about how drones are as bad as torture.
Drones are bad. But they’re better than dumb bombs. Collateral damage isn’t the same thing as torture. Because collateral damage is how warfare works, at least for now. I’m sure any day now we’ll have smaller drones that can hit individuals, and I’ll call that a good day.
When you bomb a high value target, some janitors get killed. When you start looking for piles of civilians to kill, that’s when Magiver would start to have a point.
I’d like to introduce you to war. It sucks. And sometimes killing people gets messy. This is why I don’t like war. I would rather us use troops on the ground in almost all cases. But America in the 21st century is fat and afraid. They don’t want the pain of war, just the rush of victory. That said, minimizing civilian casualties should be the norm. And to the extent it’s not, I’m suitably outraged, I assure you.
But war isn’t torture. At least it wasn’t, for us, until the GOP installed an evil man and a fool into power.
The interrogations in question were about as pinpoint as it gets. Certainly much more pinpoint than drones. And “civilian casualties” were certainly minimized. Unless you can point to even one person out of around 30 that were interrogated that was a “civilian”. But then, in your logic, killing hundreds/thousands of people, including innocent civilians, is better than exerting physical pressure to get information out of a very limited number of enemy combatants. MUCH more moral, definitely. Bask in that warmth of moral superiority.
Including the false information the ones tortured provided about Saddam’s WMDs and “alliance” with al Qaeda to justify the U.S. attack.
It was poppycock, pinpointed and on target, but still poppycock.
Sorry no it doesn’t work that way. The interrogation techniques ended long ago and the drone attacks are an ongoing thing. This is a witch hunt without a witch.
Drones are not bad. How we use them is bad. And our use of them is as bad, if not worse, than torture in my book. That is not to say that I condone torture-- I don’t condone either torture or our overall drone strategy. I find it just as disturbing to see people defend that drone strategy as I do seeing people defend torture.
WOW. That’s quiet the denial of reality. We’re not at war with Somalia, Pakistan and the various other countries getting our drones.
It’s nice that you think killing people is “messy” but interrogation techniques that leave them healthy and ALIVE is evil. Interesting metrics involved in that line of thought.
In reality what it does not work is to avoid quoting the rest of what I posted, the same reprehensible behavior is justified by many past, current and future leaders, it is very important indeed to not let this under the rug.
There is also in your post an avoidance of what those past rulers did with the false information obtained by torture, it is indeed a lesson that should not be forgotten unless they are willing to repeat it and that there is a lot of people that will support them.
Since this is the opposite of what I said, I can dismiss the rest of your nonsense, as well.
You just leap from one error to another just the way you did regarding Benghazi, where even your Republican led Congressional comittee wound up declaring that every one of your claims was wrong. * ::: shrug :::*
You have pretty well demonstrated that you have nothing relevant or accurate to say regarding any aspect of the so-called War on Terror, and appear to have no interest in facts or logic. I am pretty sure that everyone else can see that as well, so I will leave you to your fantasies.
To be fair to Scalia, if millions of people in Los Angeles were about to killed by a nuclear bomb, that would be a pretty urgent situation.
Scalia is a stupid sack of shit. If millions of people in Los Angeles were about to be killed by a nuclear bomb, torture would be even more useless than it already is. If torture can’t get results in years, there’s no sane reason to think it will work in minutes, when the victim, even assuming you actually got the right guy, can draw strength from the fact that he just has to wait out the clock.
So, let me get this straight. You can’t tell the difference between subjecting an unwilling enemy to torture, and subjecting a willing ally to it as a matter of training? You don’t see any significant moral or functional differences there?
Also, you can’t tell the difference between a necessary and agreed-upon medical procedure, and an operation that has very little to do with either and is not conducted under any sort of Hippocratic oath?
And then we have a bunch of political hand-waving, conspiracy theories, and attempts to distract from the point at hand.
If you want to defend the USA’s policies of torture, then defend those policies. If you want to argue it didn’t happen, then make a convincing argument to that account. Dragging all this other irrelevant shit into the discussion is a complete and utter waste of everyone’s time. Make your own damn thread for that shit if you care about it.
Scalia poses an absurdity to defeat reason, he offers the most extreme rationality to defeat the reasonable. Its very similar to the crap about using voter ID to protect against voter fraud deciding a super-dooper close election.
If the CIA should revise its policies on recruiting a DFH of mature years and drafts me to make these decisions, and the scenario is as advertised, yes, I would torture. If I truly believed that doing so would save a hundred thousand lives, I simply would have no choice.
And I would turn myself in to the nearest authority and make my case to be pardoned. Not innocent, but pardoned. I have no doubt that I would be, no other result is reasonable.
Using the rational to defeat the reasonable perverts the intellect, especially when done in the service of the dark spirits of vengeance and fear.
Yet another thing posted on the Dope that makes me wish we had a “Like” button.
So then just to be clear, when Chase Nielsen, one of the pilots in the Doolittle raid, was captured he was water boarded.
This was classified as torture and the men who did it were hanged.
Is your position that the US military was wrong and that Chase Nielsen wasn’t really tortured he was merely subjected to “enhanced interrogation techniques”?
By that logic does that mean the tribunals that sentenced the men to death engaged in war crimes.
Let’s not even deal with the fact that this was back when people accused of war crimes were given due process and were given tribunals and the right to defend themselves.
I keep seeing this mentioned. Can you show me a cite that would show that they were hanged for the waterboarding? Or maybe it was for other stuff and you were just trying to make the impression that that was the case?