Oddly silent

ZHawke wrote: If we, and our allies, choose to continue our efforts in war as we've done for over a decade now, instead of trying to get to the underlying "core" issues that divide us, I believe we, not they, will ultimately lose this fight.

Sorry to interrupt, but what are these core issues that could be resolved through negotiation? I'll agree that negotiation and diplomacy is always preferred over force, but it takes both participants at the table who value human lives and a civil society. When one side wants you dead because you don't want to live within their religious ideology, how do you bridge that gap?

Rick wrote: Sorry to interrupt, but what are these core issues that could be resolved through negotiation? I'll agree that negotiation and diplomacy is always preferred over force, but it takes both participants at the table who value human lives and a civil society. When one side wants you dead because you don't want to live within their religious ideology, how do you bridge that gap?

A couple of things here:

1. There's a difference between "could" and "might". I'm not so naive as to think anything along these lines would be easy to achieve. Nor would it be a short term effort. There's a lot more to ending hostilities than just an end to the gunfire (broadly speaking to include bombing, hostage taking, etc., etc.). It's much more complicated than that. Beating someone over the head with a stick to get them to submit hasn't worked, is not working, and, IMO, will not work anytime soon either. Basically, what that does is hold people "hostage" on a different level. That's all.

2. You're right. It does take two to tango. I'm not even sure the protagonists can even be "brought to the table", much less become active participants in the diplomatic talks. Also, diplomacy, in the case of terrorism especially, is arguably an avenue to give groups like ISIS "diplomatic recognition". That's not something I believe would be productive at all. The issue, IMO, is more along the lines of working within the Middle Eastern "community of nations" to do something we have not really actively pursued thus far except in a very passive manner diplomatically speaking - get their involvement and support, both diplomatically and militarily to help curb this plague upon them and upon the world. That's not to say it would be successful, especially right away, but without at least trying, we and our allies are going to continue to spend untold amounts of dollars and keep on causing loss of life, both our own and those who live there in an effort that cannot ultimately be "won" with any degree of certainty or permanence.

What really is the "reality"? - www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday-c...tion-tactics-torture

jf1acai wrote: What really is the "reality"? - www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday-c...tion-tactics-torture

I'd say read the actual report to get a little better understanding. I read through most of the transcript you provided, and I'm not convinced by any of it that torture was not used. FOX News isn't the final arbiter on any of this. The Senate Committee was made up of both Dems and Repubs. The final vote (as stated in the transcript) was something like 11-3 in favor or its release. Chris Wallace put it out there right from the get-go that this was a Democratic report. That simply isn't true. It shouldn't be a partisan issue, IMO. It should be about whether or not officials in our government sanctioned what most of the rest of the world is arguably looking at as being torture, both by their own and international law. Splitting hairs to define what's "legal" or "not legal" from a torture definition isn't something I choose to admire - at all. Regardless of whether it fits within those "legal" parameters or not, there are some who've questioned whether those tasked with coming up with those "legal" parameters in the first place were even qualified to do so at the time and whether they had a pre-disposition to actually do so.

Let's just call it like it is...SSDD HYPOCRISY...we will condemn our enemies and cry foul (just as MCAIN)
AND then provide the SAME punishment/torture to them and call it acceptable/ok (CHENEY)...YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS....Hypocrisy at the highest level.

The Senate Committee was made up of both Dems and Repubs. The final vote (as stated in the transcript) was something like 11-3 in favor or its release.

I believe that is misleading. The Republicans on the committee did not participate in the creation of the report, nor did they support it. It was created entirely by Democratic Senate staffers. The 11 to 3 vote you refer to was strictly regarding the release of the report, not agreement with the report. There is no way it was a bi-partisan report.

The "reality" is that there continues to be wide disagreement about both the content of the report, and the advisability of releasing the report at this time.

jf1acai wrote: I believe that is misleading. The Republicans on the committee did not participate in the creation of the report, nor did they support it. It was created entirely by Democratic Senate staffers. The 11 to 3 vote you refer to was strictly regarding the release of the report, not agreement with the report. There is no way it was a bi-partisan report.

The "reality" is that there continues to be wide disagreement about both the content of the report, and the advisability of releasing the report at this time.

Members: www.intelligence.senate.gov/memberscurrent.html

Haven't really had time yet to look at this, but it gives "views" of some of the members of the Committee that offered them. If the Republicans' views are as you state (after I've had a chance to review them, I'll accede to your assertion. If not, I'd hope you might be willing to do the same. Fair enough?

www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014.html

So far, I've read Senator Susan Collins' (Republican) "additional views". They appear to me to support what I've been trying to say. While she finds flaws in the report, itself, one of her more poignant comments is:

It bears repeating that torture need not be ineffective to be wrong. The United States correctly answered the question of whether torture should be prohibited when our nation ratified the Convention against Torture in 1994. The prohibition against torture in both U.S. law and international law is not based on an evaluation of its efficacy at eliciting inforination. Rather, the prohibition was put in place because torture is immoral and contrary to our values.

And, at the end of her statement, there is this:

My vote to declassify this report does not signal my endorsement of all of its conclusions or its methodology. I do believe, however, that the Executive Summary, and. Additional and Minority Views, and the CIA's rebuttal should be made public with appropriate redactions so the American public can reach their own conclusions about the conduct of this program. In my judgment, the "enhanced interrogation techniques" led, in some instances, to inhumane and brutal treatment of certain individuals held by the United States government.

More to come as I read it through.

ScienceChic wrote:

ZHawke wrote: More anecdotal, but straight to the heart of the matter regarding the use of torture:

www.stonekettle.com/2014/12/the-road-to-hell.html

You use torture, you are a torturer. Plain and simple. If the U.S. uses torture, the U.S. is a torturer. Plain and simple.

Thank you for posting this link ZHawke, you beat me to it.

To me it boils down to this: we are no better than our enemies if we engage in the same practices for which we condemn them. There was a time when we went to war to stop countries who committed torture on people and the means never justifies the end in this scenario. In practicing torture, we lose our exceptionalism, our right to hold ourselves up as an example for others to emulate, and we invite our enemies to continue to treat their prisoners as badly. You do not ever end violence with the perpetuation of more violence.

I am deeply ashamed of the actions of those who have committed torture, and who condoned and ordered this done. They should all be held accountable.

[/b]

When you have the Vice President of the United States (Cheney) STATING he'd do it again,the means
justified the end and DEFENDING torture...do you TRULY believe there will be ANY action taken? Of course,NOT because THAT mindset is prevalent thru out our government (it takes MANY forms)....SSDD