Obama Has Paralyzed the CIA

WinterBorn said:
This covers the United States signed that document, and so we agreed to abide by the principles outlined there.

The fact that others do not abide by those rules does not mean we are not bound by them.
Click to expand...
You didn't address the situation outlined in my analogy.
 
If the southerner used the phrase in a mixed gender audience, then he would have violated the rules.


The point is, we as a nation agreed to follow certain rules. We did not agree to follow them as long as everyone else follows them.

If I know that my neighbor stole someone's lawnmower, I cannot steal it from him without being guilty of theft.

Abiding by agreed upon rules is not dependent on whether others follow them.
 
WinterBorn said:
If the southerner used the phrase in a mixed gender audience, then he would have violated the rules.


The point is, we as a nation agreed to follow certain rules. We did not agree to follow them as long as everyone else follows them.

If I know that my neighbor stole someone's lawnmower, I cannot steal it from him without being guilty of theft.

Abiding by agreed upon rules is not dependent on whether others follow them.
Click to expand...
Actually if your neighbor stole your lawnmower you would absolutely have the right to steal it back. It's yours.

When I was a kid my best friend owed me $100 so I stole his broken dirt bike. He never complained and we're still friends.
 
Southern Man said:
Actually if your neighbor stole your lawnmower you would absolutely have the right to steal it back. It's yours.

When I was a kid my best friend owed me $100 so I stole his broken dirt bike. He never complained and we're still friends.
Click to expand...

That was not what my analogy said.

"If I know that my neighbor stole someone's lawnmower, I cannot steal it from him without being guilty of theft."

That distinctly points to the lawnmower being stolen from a 3rd party.

The point of my analogy was, just because the other person breaks the law does not mean we can ignore the same laws.
 
WinterBorn said:
That was not what my analogy said.

"If I know that my neighbor stole someone's lawnmower, I cannot steal it from him without being guilty of theft."

That distinctly points to the lawnmower being stolen from a 3rd party.

The point of my analogy was, just because the other person breaks the law does not mean we can ignore the same laws.
Click to expand...
Of course not, but we aren't taking about a third party here. Terrorists broke the rules and we bend them a little on the terrorists. Don't you want to save innocent lives and stop them?
 
Southern Man said:
Of course not, but we aren't taking about a third party here. Terrorists broke the rules and we bend them a little on the terrorists. Don't you want to save innocent lives and stop them?
Click to expand...

Of course I want to save lives and stop them. But does the threat mean we are no longer required to abide by our own laws and rules?

Rules are not "bent". They are either followed or not followed. If the rules expressly forbid inhumane treatment, then subjecting a terrorist to inhumane treatment is breaking those rules. It is not bending them.

WE agreed to abide by the rules. We did not agree to abide by the rules except when terrorists are involved. There is no codicle that claims immunity to the rules if it saves lives.
 
WinterBorn said:
Of course I want to save lives and stop them. But does the threat mean we are no longer required to abide by our own laws and rules?

Rules are not "bent". They are either followed or not followed. If the rules expressly forbid inhumane treatment, then subjecting a terrorist to inhumane treatment is breaking those rules. It is not bending them.

WE agreed to abide by the rules. We did not agree to abide by the rules except when terrorists are involved. There is no codicle that claims immunity to the rules if it saves lives.
Click to expand...

If you want to save lives then you have to agree to some discomfort. If your kid had a rotted tooth you'd authorize the dentist to pull it, wouldn't you? That doesn't make the dentist or you guilty of torture.
 
Southern Man said:
If you want to save lives then you have to agree to some discomfort. If your kid had a rotted tooth you'd authorize the dentist to pull it, wouldn't you? That doesn't make the dentist or you guilty of torture.
Click to expand...

However, if I grabbed your kid and took him to the dentist and had a tooth pulled I would be guilty of a crime, regardless of whether the tooth was rotten.


The fact is that we agreed to abide by certain rules. The only question is whether or not we did so.

If you want to change the rules there are methods of doing so. But to claim that we "bend" the rules is not one of those methods. It is not "discomfort", nor is it "bending the rules". It is a violation of an international agreement that we signed.
 
WinterBorn said:
However, if I grabbed your kid and took him to the dentist and had a tooth pulled I would be guilty of a crime, regardless of whether the tooth was rotten.
...
Click to expand...
If I was negligent and didn't take my kid with a rotted tooth to the dentist, the authorities would take him, legally.
 
Southern Man said:
If I was negligent and didn't take my kid with a rotted tooth to the dentist, the authorities would take him, legally.
Click to expand...

This analogy doesn't really equate to this topic.

We agreed to abide by certain rules. And we are required to do so, despite what anyone else does.
 
WinterBorn said:
This analogy doesn't really equate to this topic.

We agreed to abide by certain rules. And we are required to do so, despite what anyone else does.
Click to expand...
Actually it does because sometimes the authority has to step in for the betterment of the individual or a society. I would argue that the US would be negligent if it didn't use every means necessary to extract information from a terrorist, while still abiding to basic rules of decency. Otherwise innocent people would die and some of our best soldiers would be dragged naked and hung from bridges. Is that what you prefer?

I'm not sure how Obama thinks that forwards his agenda but perhaps his agenda is not as stated.
 
Southern Man said:
Actually it does because sometimes the authority has to step in for the betterment of the individual or a society. I would argue that the US would be negligent if it didn't use every means necessary to extract information from a terrorist, while still abiding to basic rules of decency. Otherwise innocent people would die and some of our best soldiers would be dragged naked and hung from bridges. Is that what you prefer?

I'm not sure how Obama thinks that forwards his agenda but perhaps his agenda is not as stated.
Click to expand...

Either you are abiding by the rules or you are not. The argument that we should do whatever it takes as long as lives are saved is nothing more than weak justification for doing whatever we want.

We had the rule that we do not negotiate with terrorists. Should we throw that out because lives might be lost?

During WWII we held japanese-americans in internment camps. Is that justified because there were no sabotage attempts?




No, either we abide by the rules or we don't. And the rule against torture doesn't have any "wiggle room".
 
WinterBorn said:
Either you are abiding by the rules or you are not. The argument that we should do whatever it takes as long as lives are saved is nothing more than weak justification for doing whatever we want.

We had the rule that we do not negotiate with terrorists. Should we throw that out because lives might be lost?

During WWII we held japanese-americans in internment camps. Is that justified because there were no sabotage attempts?




No, either we abide by the rules or we don't. And the rule against torture doesn't have any "wiggle room".
Click to expand...
All rules have different interpretations and water boarding or other techniques used doesn't break those rules that you linked to nor the common definition of torture.
 
Southern Man said:
All rules have different interpretations and water boarding or other techniques used doesn't break those rules that you linked to nor the common definition of torture.
Click to expand...

I would say that waterboarding fits the definition.

"Principle 6
No person under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be subjected
to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.* No
circumstance whatever may be invoked as a justification for torture or other
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

* The term "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment"
should be interpreted so as to extend the widest possible protection against
abuses, whether physical or mental, including the holding of a detained or
imprisoned person in conditions which deprive him, temporarily or permanently,
of the use of any of his natural senses, such as sight or hearing, or of his
awareness of place and the passing of time."
 
WinterBorn said:
I would say that waterboarding fits the definition.

"Principle 6
No person under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be subjected
to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.* No
circumstance whatever may be invoked as a justification for torture or other
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

* The term "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment"
should be interpreted so as to extend the widest possible protection against
abuses, whether physical or mental, including the holding of a detained or
imprisoned person in conditions which deprive him, temporarily or permanently,
of the use of any of his natural senses, such as sight or hearing, or of his
awareness of place and the passing of time."
Click to expand...

Your interpretation would also then include solitary confinement which has to be used under circumstances when the prisoner is a danger to himself or to others.
 
Southern Man said:
Your interpretation would also then include solitary confinement which has to be used under circumstances when the prisoner is a danger to himself or to others.
Click to expand...

In solitary confinement the prisoner would still have his natural sense, his sense of the passage of time, and his awareness of place.

Unless you mean the "in the box" version of solitary confinement shown in movies. Most of that sort of solitary has been done away with.


But waterboarding certainly fits within the guidelines of what is not allowed. And if we disagreed with the guidelines we should have worked to change it. We should not have signed the agreement and then just decided not to go along with it when it suited us.
 
WinterBorn said:
In solitary confinement the prisoner would still have his natural sense, his sense of the passage of time, and his awareness of place.

Unless you mean the "in the box" version of solitary confinement shown in movies. Most of that sort of solitary has been done away with.


But waterboarding certainly fits within the guidelines of what is not allowed. And if we disagreed with the guidelines we should have worked to change it. We should not have signed the agreement and then just decided not to go along with it when it suited us.
Click to expand...

Not according to this guy:

Humans are social animals; deprived of regular contact, we lose our minds. And that's just what's happening in solitary confinement cells across the country — that according to surgeon and author Atul Gawande, whose article in the current issue of New Yorker magazine looks at the effects of extended solitary confinement.
Click to expand...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102486453

I don't see how water boarding fits your definition. That is, unless you want to include solitary confinement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top