Okay, I firmly believe that one should give credit where credit is due. And, frankly President Obama needs to receive credit in listening to his military advisers at the Pentagon.In a somewhat shocking reversal, President O. decided not to have the photos of abuse by some of our military released to the public. Great move Mr. President. Releasing the photos does nothing to forward the cause of stopping abuses that are perpetrated in war. The rogue military men - as this isn't a systematic practice - have been punished for their crimes. To release the photos would only cause further danger to our men and women in the armed services of our nation.
America does not systematically abuse our enemies. In fact, we are a very humane nation putting our enemies' human rights in their proper priority. Most of our enemies who are captured get to sleep in air conditioned facilities with three hot meals a day. A far cry from the conditions most of the are used to existing in. However, we fight an enemy that does not place this same priority on the rights of our service men and women. The Islamic terrorist make it a terror practice to decapitate enemies and civilians, by hand and with hand held weapons. It doesn't get anymore gruesome than that. God forbid that we water board known terrorist to coerce information from them while an attending physician is standing by. And, this information has proven to have saved hundreds if not thousands of lives in foiled terror plots. If only our enemies were so humane to our men and women. This is not the wars of our fathers. We are engaged in a new warfare where the Geneva Convention is completely thrown out the window by those who wish to exterminate us from the face of the Earth.
President Obama did a good thing here, no he did a GREAT thing here. He put the lives of our troops above ideology, even to the detriment of being attacked by his far left backers - like the ACLU - who still want these photos released. Great job here Mr. President, you did a service to our country! Now about socialism... :)
Well...we are in agreement that the pictures do not need to be divulged to the public. I don’t think releasing these photos automatically ensures accountability for military actions. However, to achieve this accountability/transparency I do think that a special prosecutor should be assigned to investigate what did happen in Abu Grab and the other facilities these additional photos come from (my understanding is that some are from Abu Grab, but others are from other detention facilities) and to see which personnel was prosecuted and to see the validity of the military investigation. My understanding is that only a few low ranking officers were indicted and I find it hard to believe that the buck stopped so low…especially given that these atrocities happened in more than one detention facility (these folks probably had orders from higher up).
ReplyDeleteI would argue that when we feel our freedoms threatened we have a long history of being anything but humane. Examples abound, from internment camps for the Japanese in WWII, to invading Iraq on shoddy information, to interning enemy combatants indefinitely…some of whom were eventually found innocent during some of the few Bush Gitmo tribunals conducted and sent home after a 3-4 year stay in our “lush” accommodations (like Abu Grab). Not to mention the flaunting of our “enhanced interrogation tactics” (e.g., waterboarding), which every other industrialized nation considers torture and doesn’t engage in per international treaty.
Don’t get me wrong, detention centers and interrogations are important for bringing terrorists to justice, but that is the catch…our system has to have due process in place to see that justice occurs lest we wrongfully punish someone and we should not engage in torture to coerce (what will likely be false) information …we are better than that, our nation is better than that, and we are better than our enemies…we gotta maintain the moral high ground or else we are no better than them. And…by the way, this coercive information has not been proven to have saved hundreds or thousands of lives in foiled terror plots…we have no idea of knowing what kind of information has been gained because it is all classified. The only person who says it has saved lives is the previous administration who wanted to do it and is now touting that it saved lives. The current administration says it produces no useful information…sounds like he said she said. Except that contemporary research falls on the side of the current administration and suggests that these tactics are unreliable and provide no “truthful” information…you will just get an admission to whatever you want an admission for from the torturee…all they care about is staying alive and will do whatever possible to placate you. I mean the average waterboarding session on lasts a couple of seconds…why because the person believes they are dying (and they actually would if they held out longer…either from asphyxia or respiratory failure…this is widely documented) and want to not die.
In the end, I think he did the right thing with these photos…and has taken my advice from a couple of posts back about Gitmo and reinstating these tribunals :) Also, I’m glad he is adding due process to the tribunal process and throwing coerced admissions out of evidence. And I figure the bit about socialism is for me :) …well I doubt he’ll turn his ways there…he is just trying to follow Jesus’ example :)
Another long comment sorry ;)
@Ryan: First of all in reference to the Iraq war, you cannot call information from the CIA shoddy. That's the whole point to their existence is to provide the best information possible. They delivered the info that they had, that other countries had as well and then the Bush administration along with Congress thought it was credible enough and dangerous enough that all were in agreement to go in and liberate the people, crushing a tyrant.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, concerning water boarding... the people being water-boarded aren't your everyday run of the mill soldiers. They are captured TERRORIST who consort with other known terrorist who like to talk about the next big bomb or attack. So, to coerce them into giving information under fear of death is the point. Plus, it's not like they water board them get some info and let them go back into the wild. They hold them with the promise that if the info that they have been given is false, then they are going to come back and finish the deed. The terrorist at this point is scared to give bad info, so they spill the beans and America thwarts numerous terrorists plots. One former CIA spy (I forget his name) said that if Americans truly knew how many plots have been thwarted that we would sleep soundly at night. Once these guys (terrorist) cross the line to becoming a terrorist they have forfeited their right to humane treatment so long as their plan is to hurt and kill the innocent. The attack of 9/11 wasn't on a military installment, it was on a public place during a busy part of the work morning. Their intent was to kill Americans, not soldiers. So they should use whatever means necessary to get the information that the terrorist has to ensure the safety of Americans, all the while being governed by our laws to make sure we don't get into the wholesale torture business... which is NOT what is happening here. So to assume that Cheney doesn't know what he is talking about when he says release the documents showing how we saved lives can't be thrown out because you don't like their political party and leanings. Despite the media's leanings to show otherwise, he is no moron bumbling around shooting up people.
I also find it odd that you talk of "moral high ground" as a Christian who votes for a liberal candidate like Barack Obama - who is notorious for voting consistently for ABORTION and let me be clear - ABORTION IS KILLING BABIES. I don't care if a candidate promised my family a new car every year and 30% raises each year as long as he is president, Christians simply cannot vote to fatten their pocket books and ignore the fact that their candidate of choice will do wonders to promote the cause of killing pre-born babies. I would seriously do some serious soul searching on this issue alone, b/c as Romans 1 says that condoning the listed behaviors even though you don't participate directly, you become just as guilty as though you are participating. Can one candidate single handily stop abortion? Not completely, but look what he has done in office so far - repealed the Bush administration ban on sending tax payer money to fund abortion programs in foreign countries, his Health and Human Services pick was a defender for one of the most notorious baby killers in America. My family and I would chose to starve in the streets before supporting someone who ensure the "freedom" to murder these innocents. Believe me politicians have blood on their hands and God is not ignoring this. This is a serious issue and Christians who vote for candidates that support - openly support - abortion and furthering it's causes will be held accountable by a God who notices when one sparrow hits the ground... don't you think He is mindful of all the babies and their potential lives that have "fallen to the ground" as well? As you can tell this is a hot topic with me and I don't mince words. You should seriously consider this.
Lastly, Jesus isn't a socialist... Jesus isn't a communist... Jesus isn't republican or democrat... He cannot be boxed in to fit our human persuasions. In Acts where the people all shared what they had, none of them went to the rich, took what they had and then dispersed it amongst themselves. They all had the mind of God to help each other - freely - and made their own minds up to all give what they had so that none go hungry. Socialism, entitlement programs, etc. are the main contributors to the death of the church. Once the government left it's constitutional role and began caring for everyone from the womb to the tomb Christians lost their sense of responsibility to their neighbor and this thrust us into the pitiful church age that we are in. This is not an example of government regulated giving, but men and women full of the Holy Spirit and love that they let no one go without. Also, this is the same group that said, if a man doesn't work don't let him eat. Maybe we should take that into consideration as well, before we continue giving handouts to perfectly healthy men who chose to sponge off the government instead of providing for their families.
Thank you for your comments.
In the CIA comment, I meant to say WOULD NOT sleep well at night...
ReplyDelete“First of all in reference to the Iraq war, you cannot call information from the CIA shoddy. That's the whole point to their existence is to provide the best information possible. They delivered the info that they had, that other countries had as well and then the Bush administration along with Congress thought it was credible enough and dangerous enough that all were in agreement to go in and liberate the people, crushing a tyrant.”
ReplyDeleteExcept that we have since found out that the information and intelligence was wrong (outdated to be exact)…ergo…shoddy. Just b/c gathering information is the CIAs function does not mean they always get it right, this is a prime example of a colossal mistake. Not too mention that most countries in the world did not see the threat as big as our administration…remember the lack of traditional coalition for such an invasion.
“Secondly, concerning water boarding... the people being water-boarded aren't your everyday run of the mill soldiers. They are captured TERRORIST who consort with other known terrorist who like to talk about the next big bomb or attack.”
Except for when these procedures are performed in the field and not in a detention facility…then they can be your average joe who is in the wrong place at the wrong time. Additionally, your assumption here is that everyone who is detained is automatically a terrorist but being in a detention facility this does not necessarily make someone a terrorist…only a suspected terrorist. Again, through the Bush tribunal process several detainees were released because they were found to be innocent of alleged crimes. Do you not believe in the rule of law that men should be innocent until proven guilty? Or are you of the opinion that not living inside the US automatically makes you a terrorist and our enemy?
“So, to coerce them into giving information under fear of death is the point. Plus, it's not like they water board them get some info and let them go back into the wild. They hold them with the promise that if the info that they have been given is false, then they are going to come back and finish the deed. The terrorist at this point is scared to give bad info, so they spill the beans and America thwarts numerous terrorists plots.”
Your entire argument here lies on the assumption that under torture one is a rational thinker…however; my point is that this assumption is false because the only thing the tortured person thinks is to tell me whatever I want to hear so that I will stop torturing them. If I asked you if you were a banana while I was torturing you, then you would say you are a banana to get me to stop…does this make you a banana or do I have bad information? Additionally, you also assume that these guys get waterboarded one time…I highly doubt this is the case. These guys know how this process is going to work, so your second point about coming back to finish the job is moot…they already know prior to getting waterboarded that more will be coming later.
“One former CIA spy (I forget his name) said that if Americans truly knew how many plots have been thwarted that we would sleep soundly at night.”
Yes, but the best information we get is through things like surveillance and wire tapping…not torture.
“ So they should use whatever means necessary to get the information that the terrorist has to ensure the safety of Americans, all the while being governed by our laws to make sure we don't get into the wholesale torture business... which is NOT what is happening here.”
Except that our laws say we don’t torture…since waterboarding is toture then we are not working within our laws. How many people need to be tortured to consider it wholesale? How many people are imprisoned in facilities like Aub Grab that we have photos of being what…tortured? Thousands.
“So to assume that Cheney doesn't know what he is talking about when he says release the documents showing how we saved lives can't be thrown out because you don't like their political party and leanings. Despite the media's leanings to show otherwise, he is no moron bumbling around shooting up people.”
I don’t think Cheney a moron…I think he is smart and calculating which is why he is on the media circuit talking about all this. He is trying to avoid a congressional investigation that he sees coming…if he believes so much in torture as a means to get solid information then why wouldn’t he say “go ahead and bring on a special prosecutor, we have a sound case?” Likely because he knows his case doesn’t hold water. Not to mention that the Supreme Court is already overturning decision after decision that the Bush justice department thought they had legally correct for when it comes to the war on terror…my guess is that this will become another mention on this forming list.
“I also find it odd that you talk of "moral high ground" as a Christian who votes for a liberal candidate like Barack Obama - who is notorious for voting consistently for ABORTION and let me be clear - ABORTION IS KILLING BABIES. I don't care if a candidate promised my family a new car every year and 30% raises each year as long as he is president, Christians simply cannot vote to fatten their pocket books and ignore the fact that their candidate of choice will do wonders to promote the cause of killing pre-born babies. I would seriously do some serious soul searching on this issue alone, b/c as Romans 1 says that condoning the listed behaviors even though you don't participate directly, you become just as guilty as though you are participating.”
“As you can tell this is a hot topic with me and I don't mince words.”
I appreciate your point of view here. I don’t agree with abortion either. My wife is an Ob/Gyn so I all too well know the ins and outs of abortion. She always tries to get women contemplating an abortion to at least first get an ultrasound…statistically this makes someone less likely to go ahead with an abortion. Like I’ve said before I think Republicans get the big picture part of this issue right (i.e., making abortion illegal). Neither of our two major political parties have all the answers…they are imperfect just as are the people they are trying to serve. I think it is naïve to think that one political party could have all the answers… we are all human and fallible. BTW: I would classify myself as an Independent…I just tend to agree with the Dems on a few key issues, finance, being one of them. I will make a couple of points here…First, abortion rates in the US have consistently declined every year since the mid 1980s (including the Clinton years)…irrespective of US abortion policy. I would argue that there is a couple of major influences over this relationship…one being that more people are thinking about what abortion really means (what they are actually doing) and that there is consistently more and more increased access to contraceptives and sexual education.
Let’s be clear, the Republicans have had several opportunities to take on abortion and haven’t. Indeed, Bush had 6 years where Republicans controlled both houses of congress and the Presidential veto…if they really believed that they should end abortion, then they really missed the boat because they had the best opportunity since Roe v. Wade to do it. You might say, well they feared a filibuster, quite possible, but if that is what they really believed then bring the filibuster on and at least make a political stand. Not to mention that public opinion against abortion had been the highest since Roe v. Wade in our country (I saw the other day that this trend is continuing and now 50% of Americans believe abortion is wrong). So why didn’t the Republicans take a stand and put some legislation together to outlaw abortion? Was it because they don’t really believe what they say, are they just trying to placate the evangelicals? Or were they not interested in taking those kinds of political gambles (i.e., it is not an important enough issue for them). The latter is my guess, but I believe we would all be surprised of the number of Republicans who do placate evangelicals. Bottom line….abortion isn’t going anywhere for the foreseeable future.
So: you have 2 political parties (at least the ones that have any chance of running our country in the foreseeable future) where neither will be too radical when it comes to abortion legislation. The Republicans hold to the idea that abortion is wrong and do hardly anything about it other than some presidential orders making it harder to have one and touting an official policy where abstinence is the best way to go. While that is true that abstinence is the best policy…come on…live in the real world where the percentage of couples that wait to have sex until they are married is in the teens (maybe single digits…but it is low). Far and away, the majority of Americans have had 3+ sexual partners. The number of pregnancies and births to unwed mothers is crazy high…apparently people aren’t taking this sage advice. So the Republican party approach to abortion is largely that of avoidance. Meanwhile the Democrats also use presidential orders to make access to abortions easier, but also increase funding to things like sex education and contraceptive use (both of which contribute to lowering rates of unintended pregnancy and thus abortion rates), and put forth legislation to provide financial and social aid to poor mothers that want to keep their children since this demographic is the one most likely to abort a baby (at least this is the plan we’ll see how it goes…you know how those Republicans look at policies they see as socialistic :) This last bit really could be decent legislation that impacts abortion policy…my wife works at a free clinic as part of her education and finds that the majority of women who plan to abort their babies don’t really want to but do so because they can’t afford to have the baby and are ignorant of their options such as adoption (even though adoption agencies are already backlogged with too many cases and couldn’t handle the volume of numbers of abortions being done every year if they became illegal….that is the system is no where near large enough to accommodate abortion rates)…if you really want to see abortions in this country decrease, then put your money where your mouth is and support legislation that helps those unwed/unsupported mothers be able to keep their babies.
I guess the bottom line from my perspective is that while I don’t agree with abortion, I don’t see a world where abortion doesn’t happen as an alternative in the current political/social climate. So the best we can do is to be pragmatic about the problem rather than only limit our response to “you shouldn’t have one” (the Republican approach) …that is recognize that they will happen and try to make less of them happen…because right now that is the best we can do.
Lastly, abortion is apart of a larger issue….life issues. Included in this would be things like the death penalty and the death of innocence during war…both of which these two latter points the Republicans haven’t been good at in recent memory. Republican governors allow the death penalty by a far greater margin than do Democrat governors. I actually don’t support the use of the death penalty…life in prison without parole is a better option from my perspective. I mean one need only look to the hundreds of people that have been exonerated because of findings from things like the innocence project and DNA testing….through these kinds of efforts we now know that many countless individuals have been wrongfully put to death in our country and more would have if such projects didn’t exist. Life without parole allows time for new evidence to be found if such evidence exists. Not to mention, that life without parole costs the taxpayer on average about $500,000 less than executing the same individual would…so it is far and away cheaper on our penal system.
“Lastly, Jesus isn't a socialist... Jesus isn't a communist... Jesus isn't republican or democrat... He cannot be boxed in to fit our human persuasions.”
We obviously have had this conversation before so I won’t rehash it other than to say that I agree that Jesus wouldn’t call himself a socialist, but he wouldn’t call himself a capitalist either. However, his teachings seems to come closer to the side of socialism than capitalism. When I say Jesus was a socialist I do it tongue and cheek…mostly for your benefit :) because I feel like it is something of fingernails on a chalkboard for you…lol. Again, I think the sharing you mention in Acts is really the image and essence of the classless society that socialism preaches…it exemplifies the utopian pinnacle where government need no longer exist because the people are responsible for each other, so I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree about that interpretation (like much of our discussions, lol)…you don’t think I understand the Bible and I don’t think you understand socialism :)
Anyways, this is long and my fingers hurt :) I really have enjoyed these past conversations with you over the past few weeks and look forward to more. While we have our disagreements, we probably have more in common than you think. Although there are probably several other political issues we fall separate on. Take care!
Great comments although the fact that abortion is only declining shouldn't be seen as a total positive. It still exists as a legal form of birth control in our country and that is the travesty. I would, however, follow your pragmatic line of thinking, believing it better to have an administration that teaches abstinence until marriage, which is consistent with God's plan, than an administration that would consistently allow abortion to continue unfettered. The Repubs at least ban partial birth abortion (which Clinton vetoed the ban twice if I remember correctly) than to align myself with promoters of abortion, but that's just me.
ReplyDeleteDo the Repubs do enough? NO! I've never touted that they do, but they aren't typically in support of furthering the rights to have abortions legal as choice either. They do at least pass legislation to discourage it encouraging mothers to have sonograms to see the baby before they're aborted, etc.
Good discussion though.
I will conclude with the idea I mentioned above. Since we agree that abortions have no present future of being made illegal in this country, and since rates are constantly dropping even through the increased access to abortions during the Clinton years…then the best option we have is to try and further reduce the number. While abstinence is the best policy, it practically falls short…why? Because most people aren’t trying to live a life of biblical precepts…so sticking to abstinence-only sexual education doesn’t do anything to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies in this country. I mean why would you expect non-Christians to live a life of holiness? I mean seriously? In fact, the gold standard research for comparing the different types of sexual education programs (sponsored and funded by the Bush administration, btw…I believe the results were published in 2007) found that programs teaching safe sexual practices yielded much lower rates (indeed statistically significant lower rates) of unintended pregnancies than abstinence-only programs….what does this mean? Well, abstinence-only programs did practically nothing to stop unintended pregnancies and thus did nothing to help decrease the number of abortions in this country. This leaves us with the only rational, albeit uncomfortable, decision (that is if you really do want to see the number of abortions in this country decrease at a faster rate) with respect to sexual education and that is to have programs that teach not abstinence only, but some combination of abstinence and safe sex…a comprehensive sexual education program…again, that is if one is serious about lowering the rates of abortions. Don’t get me wrong…protesting abortions, supporting adoption agencies, being a witness to your community and source of comfort for those in difficult situations can help to affect change…but from a public policy standpoint, abstinence-only programs don’t lead to real change. The political climate has been ripe in the past to change laws and stop abortions but those who supposedly oppose the practice failed to step up to the plate, in fact they never even got off the bench and that doesn’t reduce the rates of abortions in this country either. Maybe in the future the political landscape will once again be ripe, and those with the power will also have the resolve to actually do something about it, but for the here and now this is the best way (again) if you want to see practical change.
ReplyDeleteoh, and you are correct about Clinton and his 2x veto of partial birth abortion ban. Bush passed a similar and restrictive version that Clinton wouldn't and the Supreme Court repealled it...
ReplyDelete