Right wing lunacy

[glassgowkiss]

Hero?-not

 

The question is what now? Why isn't the Justice Department investigating? This is one of the dark chapters in US history. We have former public officials going live on TV, and there is no judicial action to prosecute these assholes.

No doubt people died on 9/11. However how does it justify torture?

And what is the future of CIA? After all, they did not prevent 9/11, now this!

Is this what really this country stands for?

US signed in 1988 a Convention and senate ratified it in 1994. It clearly states that we agree to: “international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of tortures (by) relying on so-called ‘universal jurisdiction,”’ requiring each nation signing the Convention “to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.” This includes officials who authorized torture.

[Fairweather]

[Fairweather]

[glassgowkiss]

Don't get me even started on drones, it's as barbarous as the torture and ineffective. Actually, very effective way to turn more people against us. I am with you on that one 100%. However these guys act with impunity, because they know perfectly well nobody will ever prosecute these crimes.

And why are Saudis considered such an ally? While we are condoning ISIS for beheading 3 people, Saudis beheaded 18 people, and it's supposed to be OK?

[Ben Beckerich]

No shits given, sorry.

 

Fuckin' scum bags come murder our people by the thousands, and you think our boys shouldn't do whatever they can do to get whatever information from these pieces of shit as possible?

 

Public policy: no torture

 

Real life for the men on the ground: do what needs be done, boys

[glassgowkiss]

There you have it. ISIS by doing beheadings is getting a job done. They need to send a message. At least they are open about it.

Torture produced zero usable intel.

[tvashtarkatena]

Speaking of torture....

 

"our boys"

 

"Men on the ground"

 

That is soooo, like, 1968, myan.

 

And here I thought the Whitey Tighties were into the whole chicks with guns thing.

 

Oh wait, am I being mean to the pro-torture guy?

 

My bad.

 

 

Edited December 14, 2014 by tvashtarkatena

[Phil K]

Much as it pains me, I'm going to agree with FW to a degree. Obama has disappointed me in many ways, though mostly not for the same things that get FW foaming at the mouth. I would be fine if he were held to account for Drone activities, but they would also have to haul Bush, Cheny, Rummie, John Yoo, James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen and their 81 million taxpayer dollars, and the whole clown car of psychopaths who came up with this crap in the first place off to the Hague for trial.

 

Ben B: you must not have gotten the memo; it doesn't work, isn't necessary, and is

counter to US and international law.

 

I can remember watching W's speech right after 9/11 with dread, knowing that we were headed for a poorly thought out, belligerent over reaction that was going to destabilize the region and sow the seeds for a bumper crop of new terrorists. Fine freaking mess we have now, eh? Thanks boys, for doing what needs to be done. Not.

[glassgowkiss]

 

Fuckin' scum bags come murder our people by the thousands

 

FW has good point. The same can be said about drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen. Wonder how would US react to Canada bombing inside US, because there was some anti- Canadian terrorist group? Pakistan and Yemen are sovereign countries, on the top Pakistan is way more pro american then saudis were or ever will be.

Torture discredited US in the eyes of civilized world. We stooped down to the level of North Korea. Most likely several thousands of people were killed in the process, which essentially makes us responsible for killing war prisoners. A lot of them had nothing to do with anything. As it turns out a lot of prisoners from Guantanamo had no ties to any terrorist activity, and simply were a classic case of wrong place at the wrong time.

[Ben Beckerich]

Speaking of torture....

 

"our boys"

 

"Men on the ground"

 

That is soooo, like, 1968, myan.

 

And here I thought the Whitey Tighties were into the whole chicks with guns thing.

 

Oh wait, am I being mean to the pro-torture guy?

 

My bad.

 

 

You don't get out much, do you? The rest of the world hasn't gone completely ambiguously gender neuter, bro. The English language doesn't even presently have a way to do it without pretty drastic changes in sentence arrangement; I for one, don't give a shit enough about appearing to be overly inclusive to do that, just yet.

[tvashtarkatena]

Apparently.

[tvashtarkatena]

Regarding drones - their use in combat is being rapidly expanded. Reapers can carry air to ground Hellfire missiles, 500 lb laser guided bombs, and JDAMs - with air to air Stinger missiles soon to be added.

 

They have been fantastically effective at killing the leadership of Al Qaeda and other groups on the terrorist watch list.

 

They've also killed a lot of civilians, as well as some Americans.

 

Is their effectiveness worth the price of civilian casualties (both in terms of loss of innocent life and the damage that does to US - in country relations)? If not, by what other means should the US kill leaders of terrorist organizations, or should the US kill such individuals at all? While drone strikes may produce fewer civilians casualties than other forms of attack - (invasion and other forms of air strike come to mind) - these questions remain.

 

Then there is the question of how far to automate drones - or killbots in general. Currently, drones are piloted remotely - but more and more of their functions are being automated. At some point, we may have the capability of fully automated drones - capable of tracking and killing a target without human intervention. If, hypothetically speaking - such automation could reduce civilian casualties, should the US take that step?

 

When discussing drone strikes, one must address the whole issue - and that includes the potential human and political cost of using alternative means of warfare, or simply not using drone strikes at all. It should be apparent to most folks by now that there is also a human cost to allowing groups like Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and IS to operate unchecked - and drones - whether you like them or not - have been extremely effective in doing just that.

 

Just raising some questions to more comprehensively address the issue of drones beyond the overly simplistic Obama Uses Em More So He's A Bad Guy argument. American hawks want terrorist leaders killed - that much is very clear - but unless they've got an alternative to drones that is more humane - they can't have it both ways.

 

Not honestly, anyway.

 

So, what's the alternative to drones (and no, I don't heart drones - but these questions remain)? Or should they simply not be used in warfare at all?

 

Go...

[glassgowkiss]

There is no moral justification to drone attacks on foreign soil, period- unless they attack first. There is no moral justification to torture either.

These methods create enemies faster then they kill them.

[tvashtarkatena]

I agree on torture - but it's a separate issue.

 

You can't simply state there is no moral justification with drone attacks without answering questions like mine above, however. because a new harm to civilians comes to the fore when they are not used. Allowing the Taliban et al to operate unchecked also has moral implications, does it not?

 

The groups being targeted by drones continue to attack civilians in large numbers (far exceeding drone strike casualties) today. That they kill a lot of civilians is not in doubt. That presents a moral conundrum - the opportunity cost (in innocent human lives) of doing nothing. Wouldn't you agree? If not, why not?

[Fairweather]

 

Go...

 

[ZimZam]

Barry, the saddest executive since W, (sorry Mark), who was only slightly better than Tricky. The hypocrisy of those who advocate torture as justifiable, and then in the same breath denigrate Assad or Fearless Leader astounds me. Who are the true war criminals? Torture is deplorable. Sanction Venezuela over human rights abuses? Cracker, please.

[ivan]

WWSHD?

[glassgowkiss]

Barry, the saddest executive since W, (sorry Mark), who was only slightly better than Tricky. The hypocrisy of those who advocate torture as justifiable, and then in the same breath denigrate Assad or Fearless Leader astounds me. Who are the true war criminals? Torture is deplorable. Sanction Venezuela over human rights abuses? Cracker, please.

 

And in a nutshell this is the crux of the issue. Before we as a nation start pointing fingers at others, we ought to have a good look at this country first. And the issue is simple: people here have way too casual approach to killing others. Weather it's a cop killing unarmed civilian, or CIA operative killing through torture, or a drone pilot killing someone on the other side of the world. We are slowly turning into savages.

[Phil K]

And in a nutshell this is the crux of the issue. Before we as a nation start pointing fingers at others, we ought to have a good look at this country first. And the issue is simple: people here have way too casual approach to killing others. Weather it's a cop killing unarmed civilian, or CIA operative killing through torture, or a drone pilot killing someone on the other side of the world. We are slowly surely turning into savages.

 

Fixed.

[Ben Beckerich]

What makes you think we weren't already savages?

[tvashtarkatena]

It's true that Americans practice unspeakable cruelty. Guantanamo torture camp, keeping a man alone in a tiny cell for 40 years for 23 hours a day, the warehousing of the mentally ill in prisons, our first place incarceration rate - the list is long.

 

We've done arguably worse in the past - slavery, the ethnic cleansing of native Americans, the Civil War, strategic bombing, Hiroshima - so apparently we can and are learning to be better human beings. We can certainly do a lot better than we are now. Extreme wealth concentration, science denial (at our extreme peril with regards to the climate), repression of women's rights, voter suppression, glorification of warfare, solid support for the proliferation of guns in America, denigration of the environment, anti-gay bigotry. These are all examples of American dysfunction we can improve upon.

 

Still, if history is any guide, war begets more war, and America does love war, apparently, considering how often this country not only engages in them but starts them.

 

Still, there is the pesky little problem of what to do when groups like the Third Reich, Taliban, or the IS begins a campaign of egregious human rights abuses.

 

If actual precision killing of their top leadership without civilian casualties were possible, would that be the most moral course of action? Stepping back a bit from the hypothetical to the actual, if drone strikes produce the least number of civilian casualties of the tactics available for killing said leadership, is that the best moral option to take? Both of these questions assume perfect intelligence with regards to the targets in question, and that is far from what reality at this point. Or is what happens in places like Afghanistan just not an American problem?

 

I'm just asking questions here.

[Ben Beckerich]

No problem with surgical drone strikes for appropriate targets. Not sure why anyone does have a problem with that. Like anything, it's technology that can be abused.... maybe it's being abused to some degree? I can't say. I know a missile coming off a drone has to be less destructive than a 5000lb JDAM, which is how we used to do "surgical strikes." It might still be death and destruction with occasional, hopefully minimal collateral damage, but it IS progress.

 

Tsjvalphabet - I have no problem with anything you wrote above, except your weird fixation on guns. I just wish you'd accept it's an irrational fear and not even bring it up until you can articulate SOME kind of rational argument in favor of taking the one tool the People have against tyranny away from them.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

What makes you think we weren't already savages?

 

Heart of Darkness.

[tvashtarkatena]

I'm not fixated on guns. I don't work on the issue at all, in fact (other than voting). I grew up with them. I'm actually a good shot.

 

But both gun violence and gun ownership are fantastically high in the US - both are outliers among civilized nations. This leads me to conclude that we can improve on gun violence by reducing gun ownership. Background checks are a start.

 

I'm hesitant to fully support another widespread prohibition on anything after 42 years of failed and damaging Drug War, but I also believe that we need to vigorously act to reduce gun violence in the US. Sound public policy is one tool that should be used to do this.

 

Ending the Drug War would do much to reduce gun fetishism, IMO.

 

In the end, the new generation - not as enamored with guns as those it will replace, may solve the problem of extreme gun fetishism in the US. Who knows?

[ivan]

how can we be savages if we have digital wrist-watches?