Think your rights are safe?

[jwinch2]

Senator Obama voices his support for a federal ban on concealed carry permits.

LINK (http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/10/30/obama-audio-i-want-to-ban-concealed-weapons-permits)


I know some of you consider this to be a dead issue now that the Heller decision has been made. I do not think this is issue is dead at all. With an overwhelming majority in congress, the presidency, and no way of stopping the appointment of liberal judges, this will come up in an Obama administration.

[Webmaster]

If the Obama, Pelosi, Reid trio are in power, then none of our rights are safe.

[Erik]

If the Obama, Pelosi, Reid trio are in power, then none of our rights are safe.

Funny, that's what I thought about the Bush, Cheney, and Ashcroft gang. :wink2:

[Budoka34]

Funny, that's what I thought about the Bush, Cheney, and Ashcroft gang.

As much as we may not like every thing President Bush and Company have done they have done it with the complete support of a Democrat led congress.

If you think the Patriot Act is bad wait til you see what's in store for us under Obama and Biden.

Obama has stated many time his belief that no-one has a right to defend themselves armed or unarmed.

[Erik]

Obama has stated many time his belief that no-one has a right to defend themselves armed or unarmed.

I doubt that. That's too stupid a thing to say for any serious candidate.

[jwinch2]

Unfortunately Erik it is actually the case. Obama voted to allow prosecution of those who defend themselves from attack with firearms in Illinois and has stated his support for such acts multiple times.

As for the rest, you are right in your earlier statements to some extent. I have been appalled at the attacks that the right to privacy has been subjected to under the current administration. Unfortunately I also agree with Randy that I think things would be worse under an Obama administration with a democratic congress. Obama himself has already shown willingness to support curtailing individual freedoms from the right to bear arms to freedom of speech.

[Erik]

Unfortunately Erik it is actually the case. Obama voted to allow prosecution of those who defend themselves from attack with firearms in Illinois and has stated his support for such acts multiple times

It's certainly noteworthy enough to perk up one's ears but I'd want to see the details of the cases before claiming that

Obama has stated many time his belief that no-one has a right to defend themselves armed or unarmed. Can't get from B to A here without a lot more explanation.

I'm curious to see what the ACLU-type afraid-of-the-gov't people would do in the face of the dems in control of two branches. That's also something that perks up the ears.

Somehow, that scares me less, though, than a guy (whom I otherwise respect) singing "bomb bomb Iran..." on TV.

[Dennis Monk]

This is no funny matter in the slightest. As a voter, I vote for my gun rights almost first and foremost every time. Obama and his left wing Marxist colleagues will most certainly begin to infringe on our gun rights. I am sure it will start with small and seemingly innocuous legislation; which we certainly won't need. Things will then begin to deteriorate for those of us who cherish this "inalienable" right. If the gun haters want to enact tough, strict gun laws why don't they come us with something that makes sense?
Something like:
1. Commit a crime and go to prison
a. Never be able to own a firearm again (federally)
2. Commit a crime with a gun and do more time in prison
a. See "a" above
b. If death is caused, get the death penalty or life without parole
3. Get arrested for possessing a firearm as a felon and go back to prison
a. Serve time in state prison
b. Serve time in federal prison
4. Commit a crime with a gun having been a previously convicted felon and get many more years in prison
a. Serve time in state prison
b. Serve time in federal prison
c. See 2(b)
5. Commit a third felony, regardless and get life in prison as a habitual criminal

Oh, that's right, never mind. We already have this legislation and won't enforce it.

[Budoka34]

Can't get from B to A here without a lot more explanation.

I'm curious to see what the ACLU-type afraid-of-the-gov't people would do in the face of the dems in control of two branches. That's also something that perks up the ears.

Erik,

I truly hope you're joking.

Have you looked at his voting record? He sponsored legislation that denied a homeowner the right to defend themselves in their own home! It's public record.

He has publicly stated on several occasions that no-one has the right to self-defense if it will cause harm or injury to another.

I’ve heard the speeches myslef.

If I can find it in writing or a clip I'll post it.

As for if the other side is better or worse, I'll leave that to to others.

[Webmaster]

The link is from the NRA, but it's sourced and you can look them up.

http://www.nraila.org/OBAMA/

[Michael J. Bray]

:bow: Gentlemen (and ladies).Remember what we had just come out of revolution and won our independence when our constitution was written. It was written by those who understood opressive and overbearing government. They knew when they penned the document that in order for the American people to remain free that they must always have the "teeth" to uphold their freedom, and the are their arms. There are political factions that have an agenda not in the best interest of your freedom, but cannot implement that agenda while you still have your "teeth". I'm NOT about to vote for any "dentists" even though I don't really like my choices this time around. If you loose your second ammendment right it is a certainty that you will loose the rest of them. If you think the government can and will protect you, that gun bans keep you from crime just look to Great Britain. (See what we freed ourselves from once?)

[Maro]

If you think the government can and will protect you, that gun bans keep you from crime just look to Great Britain. (See what we freed ourselves from once?)

What is that supposed to mean? The murder rate in US is massively higher than the UK. Are you suggesting that you shoot potential villains? :rolleyes:

[jwinch2]

Yeah, and your rate has gone up since your big gun ban that was supposed to reduce crime. Your country does not have a history and tradition of gun ownership and as such I would not expect you to understand our position on this issue. As for your question, if someone is in my house or attacks my person or my wife, I will damn well shoot them. End of story.

[Maro]

Yeah, and your rate has gone up since your big gun ban that was supposed to reduce crime. Your country does not have a history and tradition of gun ownership and as such I would not expect you to understand our position on this issue. As for your question, if someone is in my house or attacks my person or my wife, I will damn well shoot them. End of story.

That's all well and good but casting aspersions on British situations is, as you say, no comparison due to the lack of gun ownership.

[Webmaster]

Mat, SHUT UP!

Please stay out of a discussion to which you (a) don't have any particular investment, and (b) don't know sh!t about. You have pretty well demonstrated your hostility toward gun ownership in the past, and the fact that you continue to jump in with your uninformed and stupid opinions in my judgment constitutes trolling. Stop it. If you want to get into a gun debate in a gun debate thread, that's OK. This thread is not about gun ownership, it's about a politician's position on guns. We are interested in his position and how it might affect our votes, not yours.

[Maro]

Mat, SHUT UP!

Please stay out of a discussion to which you (a) don't have any particular investment, and (b) don't know sh!t about. You have pretty well demonstrated your hostility toward gun ownership in the past, and the fact that you continue to jump in with your uninformed and stupid opinions in my judgment constitutes trolling. Stop it. If you want to get into a gun debate in a gun debate thread, that's OK. This thread is not about gun ownership, it's about a politician's position on guns. We are interested in his position and how it might affect our votes, not yours.

Nice. :rolleyes:

So its ok to bash someone else's country to make a point. :confused:

I have no hostility to guns - I have owned them in the past and shot to marksmen level.

No doubt you'll take offense to that as well.

[Webmaster]

Nice. :rolleyes:

So its ok to bash someone else's country to make a point. :confused:

I have no hostility to guns - I have owned them in the past and shot to marksmen level.

No doubt you'll take offense to that as well.
There was no bashing. Now shut up.

[Jay Bell]

Australia supposed that the crime rate would drop if a gun ban occurred. Here was the result:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304

[David Craik]

I don't think there was bashing, Mr. Rous, but it is a common belief over here that after guns were banned in the U.K. (as a result of the Dunblane incident), that burglary and sundry other crime rates climbed quite a bit. Statistics I've read seem to support this.

[Maro]

I don't think there was bashing, Mr. Rous, but it is a common belief over here that after guns were banned in the U.K. (as a result of the Dunblane incident), that burglary and sundry other crime rates climbed quite a bit. Statistics I've read seem to support this.

I'm not allowed to comment on it. :wink2:

[David Craik]

Fair enough.

[Abbax8]

I have a genetic defect, I suffer idiocy poorly. Banning guns has NO EFFECT on criminal behavior, criminals don't care about the law.

If guns are banned, WHAT NEXT, knives, swords, Martial Arts training?

Sooner or later, law abiding citizens become law breakers because they are forced to do so by stupid laws.

Peace

Dennis

[Jay Bell]

I have a genetic defect, I suffer idiocy poorly. Banning guns has NO EFFECT on criminal behavior, criminals don't care about the law.

If guns are banned, WHAT NEXT, knives, swords, Martial Arts training?

Sooner or later, law abiding citizens become law breakers because they are forced to do so by stupid laws.

Peace

Dennis

It actually *increases* criminal behavior. What greater invite to have when you know victims can't return fire..

[jwinch2]

From the Obama transition website on Urban policy.


GOAL: Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. He would support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. He also will support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

Furthermore, those who would be part of the Obama administration are being required to provide complete details about their own gun ownership along with that of their entire family complete with all registration information before they can apply for a job.

Obama has lied repeatedly that he is a supporter of the second amendment when in truth he is nothing of the sort. If he gets to nominate even one supreme court justice things are going to change for a long time, maybe even forever, with respect to our individual freedoms.

[Cliff Hargrave]

I re-upped my NRA membership the day after the election (I had let it lapse a few years ago). Oh and I am going gun shopping today. I need to reward myself for all the hard work I have been doing on my house :)

I am looking for a Ruger LPC.

[TonyU]

Check out what else he (they) want to do.

Gun Owners Need Not Apply. (http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4230)

[TonyU]

I am looking for a Ruger LPC.
You mean this (http://www.ruger-firearms.com/LCPRecall/index.html) one?

[Cliff Hargrave]

You mean this (http://www.ruger-firearms.com/LCPRecall/index.html) one?

Yea, that one. Don't drop it and your ok :)

I already knew about that recall, several of my officers have them.

[Michael J. Bray]

:bow: Mat, it seems that I offended you with my comment. I apologize as no offense was intended to anybody. It is simply fact that in the UK, and anywhere else private firearms ownership is banned or severly restricted that personal crimes increase tremendously. That has little to do with anything except the NATURE of the criminal. (:bow: are there not criminals in government seats?) Predators prey on the weaker. Law abiding citizens without firearms are less able to protect themselves or their homes from criminals or opressive governments. I am a law enforcement officer and know this first hand to be true.

[John Bennett]

Funny, that's what I thought about the Bush, Cheney, and Ashcroft gang. :wink2:

And you would be correct because Bush, Cheney, and Ashcroft are the exact same thing as Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.

All of them have the same ultimate goal, to enlarge the government on your dime.

[Michael J. Bray]

:( My dime just keeps getting thinner.....and thinner....................:cry:

[Don Roley]

If you guys really want to start worrying, try googling the terms "Fairness Doctrine" and "Charles Schumer" for a scare.

Short version, Obama has not said one way or another whether he would sign anyting about it if it came across his desk. Pelosi will not reject it and keeps it on the table. Schumer and a few others seem real eager to see that media is "balanced" according to how they think it should be.

My thoughts are that if this was obvious, Obama would reject it because it might be bad plublicity. But if the public was behind it, he would sign it. And if it was below the public's radar, but sent to him by the people he is dependent on for his political base- he would not hesitate to make it law.

And how many people have been aware of the debate so far? It looks like his allies in congress might want it done and most Americans would not even be aware if it happend during his 100 day honeymoon period.

If anyone does a web search and finds something put before his desk, please share with us here.

[Budoka34]

The end of the Bill of Rights in our time eh lads.:hot:

[John Bennett]

The end of the Bill of Rights in our time eh lads.

The Bill of Rights is already gone.

First Amendment. That's now "hate speech".

Second Amendment. Try carrying a gun in most of America and see if you wind up in jail.

Fourth Amendment. HA. The government will seize your property "administratively" without a trial anytime they feel like it.

Fifth Amendment. Due process is gone. The govenrment can hold citizens without trial indefinately. Double jeopardy happens all the time when people are prosecuted twice for the same crime by both the states and feds. Our protections against eminent domain are gone.

Sixth Amendment. Ask for a jury trial the next time you are charged with the crime of speeding and see what happens. Nowadays a "speedy trial" is 2 years in jail without being convicted of anything.

Eighth Amendment. Gone. U.S. government torturing people is now legal. One million dollars bail is now not considered "excessive".

Tenth Amendment. Let some state try and refuse to let the feds come in and enforce a law and see what happens.

[Don Roley]

Eighth Amendment. Gone. U.S. government torturing people is now legal.

American citizens sitting down tommorow for turkey dinner don't have to worry about being waterboarded. The constitution is supposed to protect the rights of American citizens, not someone caught by the military overseas. Whether that is a bad thing or not is another debate.

[John Bennett]

The constitution is supposed to protect the rights of American citizens

Exactly. That's why torture should be illegal as it was in for the Kempetai and Gestapo in WWII and the Khmer Rouge during the Vietnam war.

You think it should be legal for governments to torture people. I do not.

[David Craik]

Apparently it's okay as long as it's other people. I'm sure the Kempetai would agree.

[Don Roley]

You think it should be legal for governments to torture people. I do not.

I never said that governments should just torture people as they please. My thoughts are that if the other side does something to our troops or citizens, then we should have the same option. If the other side refuses to do something, then we should as well. The other side should not be given a free pass and an advantage over us because we will not do something they already are doing.

So if the guys that capture American soldiers treat them decently, we should do the same. They do not.

The Geneva conventions were originally set up to protect the rights of prisoners because everyone wanted their own troops to be protected if they got captured. If you were not a signer and you abused prisoners, then your troops were not covered by the protections. And it pretty much kept things a lot less bloody than it was before. But now, there is no advantage to the terrorists for following the rules because they expect to be treated according to them no matter how they act.

My feeling is that it is rather selfish for people who sit safe in their homes due to the efforts of soldiers to take off the table something that might keep those soldiers on the line safe because they want to feel a sense of moral superiority.


T. B. Bechtel, a part-time City Councilman from Midland,TX, was asked on a local live radio talk show, just what he thought of the allegations of torture of the Iraqi prisoners. His reply prompted his ejection from the studio, but to thunderous applause* from the audience.

'If hooking up an Iraqi prisoner's balls to a car's battery cables will save one Texas GI's life, then I have just three things to say,

'Red is positive'
'Black is negative'
'Make sure his balls are wet.'

The above actually was a comedian's routine.

[John Bennett]

My thoughts are that if the other side does something to our troops or citizens, then we should have the same option.

That's what I'm getting at. You think it should be legal for governments to torture people. I do not.

I say torture is wrong. I say it is immoral. Always. Like having sex with children or raping women, it's always wrong. We shouldn't rape women "sometimes", or "just a little bit", or "when it might be advantageous". We shouldn't do it at all, ever.

You say morals are relative to the situation. You say if an enemy does something, we should become more like them and do the same. This moral relativism is a big part of what's wrong with America. It is the path to decay and ruin.

But if you want to live in a country that has no moral absolutes, no bill of rights, no rule of law, we can certainly do that. We are well on the way.

[Jeff C.]

Morals ARE relative. In some cases killing is immoral. In some cases it is considered justifiable and morally acceptable. Do you feel it is ok to kill the enemy in combat? Or should we "take the high road" and "turn the other cheek?" If you believe that, we either would not be having this discussion at all, or we would be having it in another language.

Jeff Cook

[John Bennett]

My morals are pretty simple. I believe it is wrong to initiate force.

If someone is breaking into my house and I shoot them, I didn't initiate the force. They did.

In my moral code, killing in combat is justified if the purpose of the combat is self-defense.

Legalizing torture is another matter entirely. When a society legalizes torture, it is no longer a matter of "if" but instead "how much". How much rape is o.k. for me to commit? How much sex with children is ok for me to engage in? How much can a sheriff's deputy torture a suspected marijuana dealer to get him to confess?

If we reason that torture is acceptable, then it was o.k. for Saddam to torture enemies of his state. It was o.k. for the Kempetai. It's also o.k. to torture American soldiers if you live in Fallujah and catch one wrecking your neighborhood.

I don't believe we should torture people.

[Jeff C.]

John, I have no doubt you are one of the most moral people I know. I was making a point about moralism being relative, which it is. Sex with twelve-year-olds is perfectly moral and acceptable in some societies (not making a statement on whether it is RIGHT though - as in expressing absolutism as RIGHT or WRONG).

How do we define torture? There are some things that obviously are torture, but then we get to a wide, grey line. Incarceration can be considered torture. To some, the Comfy Chair and the Soft Cushions are quite torturous. ;) A long interrogation without sleep by detectives at the local precinct is considered by some to be torture.

Some aspects of Basic Combat Training, SEER (Survival, Escape, Evasion, Resistance), and other forms of military training are torture with a purpose.

Is humiliating a prisoner torture? How about posturing an aggressive, mean dog in front of a prisoner?

It is a matter of DEGREE and PERSPECTIVE. It is too easy to oversimplify the issue.

Jeff Cook

[Don Roley]

Legalizing torture is another matter entirely. When a society legalizes torture, it is no longer a matter of "if" but instead "how much". How much rape is o.k. for me to commit? How much sex with children is ok for me to engage in? How much can a sheriff's deputy torture a suspected marijuana dealer to get him to confess?

Oh, the old "slippery slope" logical fallacy.

So, we can't start putting people in jail for fear that the government will start abusing the power and put just anyone they dislike away for life? And by putting people in jail, we are just as bad as kidnappers that do the same thing? We can't authorize deadly force under any circumstance for fear that our police will go around shooting jaywalkers?

A much more logical move is to put limits on something instead of a knee jerk rejection of it. If you try to kill me, I have the right to kill you instead. If you iniitiate force, I can use force against you.

You said that you think that no one has the right to initiate force, and that you believe in self defense, even in the case of a military action.

So how about this, we will treat enemies exactly as they treat us. If they do something, then we are free to do the same thing. The restriction on our behavior is that we do not initiate something. If your side always treats our captured troops in a civilized manner and you do not target busloads of kids, we can't take action against prisoners from your side.

And taking a page from Jeff C. when we talk about American 'torture' we are talking about nothing that we do not do to our own troops. Waterboarding is the worst thing the CIA does, and I know at least two people who had it demonstrated on them when they were in the military. As for the stuff you hear about like making people stand in uncomfortable positions, placing people under stress and fear, depriving them of sleep... at Ft Benning we used to call that "basic training."

[John Bennett]

John, I have no doubt you are one of the most moral people I know. I was making a point about moralism being relative

Jeff, I'm really not that moral. I have identified morals as an area of my life that needs improvement as I enter middle age. Learning about morals and distilling them down to a core philosophy is a project I began working on about two years ago.

Before then I really never gave it much thought. It's a lot of damn hard work, study, and contemplation. I'm having some small successes that are encouraging me to continue.

It's true that different societies have different moral codes. If you grew to manhood and were culturally acclimated in Somolia, raping your 12 year-old nephew to exorcise a forest demon from his body might not be such a bad thing. Doing that in our western American culture is definitely a bad thing.

That's kind of my point. Before we start assigning degrees of torture and cut-offs for what is and what isn't torture, I think we should establish the basic premise of whether our American government should or should not legalize human torture.

[John Bennett]

> "Oh, the old "slippery slope" logical fallacy".

The slippery slope argument is fallacious only if the intervening steps are many, and the link between them is tenuous. That is not the case here.


> "So how about this, we will treat enemies exactly as they treat us".

Then we become no better than them. This is the central problem. If you sink to the morals of your enemies, what you believe in becomes not worth fighting for. It's self-defeating.

Do you really want this moral degradation to occur?

[Don Roley]

Then we become no better than them. This is the central problem. If you sink to the morals of your enemies, what you believe in becomes not worth fighting for. It's self-defeating.

Do you really want this moral degradation to occur?

That is the same argument that I hear from people that think that any sort of violence is bad.

If we strike someone trying to hit us, we are just as bad as them. If we lock up a kidnapper, we are just as bad as them. If we bomb some country because they launched an attack that killed thousands of Americans, we are just as bad as them.

And it is very easy for us to take the moral high ground in the comfort of our homes and place limits on those that are making sure we are safe. "Go ahead and risk your life to keep me safe, but don't do anything bad because I want to feel like I am morally superior."

The simple truth is that war is sometimes very brutal and far from civilized behavior. You go into war to win, or you die. I want the people putting their tails for on the line to keep me safe to have every option to be able to do their job instead of just rejecting something out of hand. If they decide not to use it, it is their choice.


The slippery slope argument is fallacious only if the intervening steps are many, and the link between them is tenuous. That is not the case here.

Yes it is tenuous. Lets look at what you wrote,


Legalizing torture is another matter entirely. When a society legalizes torture, it is no longer a matter of "if" but instead "how much". How much rape is o.k. for me to commit? How much sex with children is ok for me to engage in? How much can a sheriff's deputy torture a suspected marijuana dealer to get him to confess?

It is plain silly to think that authorizing waterboarding on captrued terrorists will lead to greater sex with children and police officers torturing marijuana dealers to confess. Let us keep this within the realms of reality instead of throwing out things like this. Remember, the constitution does protect rights of American citizens, and we have always acknowledged that there was a difference between how our police conduct their behavior, and our troops. There are laws against the military being used for domestic police work just for that reason. And the FBI is in charge of investigations inside America because they have to deal with more rules than the CIA.

So your saying that how we treat prisoners is a risk to Americans is like saying the military needs to follow what police in America do and start giving all suspects a chance to give up instead of shooting on sight.

[David Craik]

There is a difference between a professional soldier and a barbarian. Without a line precisely identified it becomes difficult to ascertain who is wearing the white hats.

[Don Roley]

There is a difference between a professional soldier and a barbarian. Without a line precisely identified it becomes difficult to ascertain who is wearing the white hats.

Right. So if we say that we will do unto others as they do unto us, then that places the onus on the other side to act nice. If you don't want your cities bombed, don't use bombs on Americans.

Once something is on the table, we are free to use it. But we don't put things on the table. If you don't come after us with deadly force, we won't try to kill you.

Oh, and we don't do anything to your soldiers that our troops have not volunteered for. I gave examples earlier.

[David Craik]

I have nothing against bombing cities. So thoroughly that the ground beneath them can be plowed, if neccesary. Torture, no. Anything that we as a people would be outraged at if done to our own should not be done by us to others. We should never sink to the level of our enemies, if it can be avoided.

[Don Roley]

I have nothing against bombing cities. So thoroughly that the ground beneath them can be plowed, if neccesary. Torture, no. Anything that we as a people would be outraged at if done to our own should not be done by us to others. We should never sink to the level of our enemies.

That seems contradictory. If our cities were bombed, "so thoroughly that the ground beneath them can be plowed" I think we would be outraged. Yet you have no problem with us doing it to others as long as the other side puts it on the table first. Yet, while you are willing to turn cities into parking lots, you would not waterboard someone.

And I don't think that doing something to survive and win is sinking to the level of the other side. That is a rather common phrase, but it disguises a bit of an unwillingness to really look at the issue and take a stand that we have moral superiority. I think that people who want to take simple stands and tell themselves they are superior instead of dealing with the issues are actually quiet the reverse.

Taking the debate away from what our troops do, lets have a little exercise.

Lets say we had captured someone with a long history of child molestation 72 hours ago. Along with him was a video tape of a little girl that had disapeared a few weeks ago. It is obvious that she is being held in a cell somewhere, but a desperate search by every resource we have has been unable to find it. She is out of water and will die within a couple of days at the longest. We are out of leads and at a dead end. Unless we make the guy talk, she will die.

Now, this is illeagle for the government to do and I am not saying that we should allow domestic law enforcement to do this. I am illustrating a point. There is no other way to save the girl other than making him talk, we can make him talk and we know he is the key. The typical aurguments have been stripped out to concentrate on the key issue.

The choice is simple, would making this guy tell where she was make us just as bad as him? Or do we cling to our sense of moral superiority and let the little girl die a drawn out death?

See how things are not quiet so neat and tidy?

[Nick L.]

I have been trying to stay out of this one, but here it goes. I agree with the bombing of cities that pose a threat to our country, with proper notice given so that civilians may exit beforehand. If I were to say that I do not agree with the torture of captives who have information that would make our country safer, that would have to be a double standard IMO. It seems that making one guys life hell for a few hours or days is far less damaging than killing hundreds of thousands, millions and destroying a entire city. Should we torture every captured combatant, No. If there is good reason and proof that a captured combatant has information that would either help complete a mission, divert an attack, or just add another piece to the puzzle, then strap his butt to the board and turn on the faucet. There are more inhumane forms of torture and more humane forms also, what about chemically induced interrogation? Is that still torture if it gets the job done? This could probably be argued for 50 years, oh wait it has been and still no resolve.

[David Craik]

That seems contradictory. If our cities were bombed, "so thoroughly that the ground beneath them can be plowed" I think we would be outraged. Yet you have no problem with us doing it to others as long as the other side puts it on the table first. Yet, while you are willing to turn cities into parking lots, you would not waterboard someone.

And I don't think that doing something to survive and win is sinking to the level of the other side. That is a rather common phrase, but it disguises a bit of an unwillingness to really look at the issue and take a stand that we have moral superiority. I think that people who want to take simple stands and tell themselves they are superior instead of dealing with the issues are actually quiet the reverse.

Taking the debate away from what our troops do, lets have a little exercise.

Lets say we had captured someone with a long history of child molestation 72 hours ago. Along with him was a video tape of a little girl that had disapeared a few weeks ago. It is obvious that she is being held in a cell somewhere, but a desperate search by every resource we have has been unable to find it. She is out of water and will die within a couple of days at the longest. We are out of leads and at a dead end. Unless we make the guy talk, she will die.

Now, this is illeagle for the government to do and I am not saying that we should allow domestic law enforcement to do this. I am illustrating a point. There is no other way to save the girl other than making him talk, we can make him talk and we know he is the key. The typical aurguments have been stripped out to concentrate on the key issue.

The choice is simple, would making this guy tell where she was make us just as bad as him? Or do we cling to our sense of moral superiority and let the little girl die a drawn out death?

See how things are not quiet so neat and tidy?

Doesn't seem contradictory to me at all. If we were at war with another nation I would expect for our cities to be bombed. I would be grieved but not outraged. I'm quite aware war is not 'neat and tidy', I've been in several of them. I hardly need you to tell me about it.

I will give you an example which proves your point to some degree. In WW2 my father served as a Captain in the British 8th Army...active in North Africa. He told me a story. Seems that a military hospital in the AO of Field Marshal Erwin Rommel was being repeatedly bombed by the RAF. Despite the fact that there were British wounded therein, protests by the German High Command seemed to fall on deaf ears, as the attacks continued. Rommel eventually wired the English stating that he would systematically begin executing British officers until such time as the illegal attacks against his hospital ceased. The attacks ceased, and a picture of Rommel (the 'enemy') remained on his wall until the day he died. Seems a lot of British friends of my dad were actually saved by Rommel's drastic threat.

The point? Commanders in the field may make decisions and take extraordinary action under extraordinary circumstances. Rommel would never have issued such an order ordinarily. These actions should not neccesarily be codified as normal operating procedure. It is easy to dream up bizarre circumstances in order to justify casual savagery. Before we become the very savages we so despise we would do well to examine the situation long and hard on a case by case basis lest we become them. The 'illeagle' you mention is apt indeed.

There is such a thing as the Geneva Conventions of which we are a signatory and the Law of War. Perhaps you should Google them.

[Don Roley]

The point? Commanders in the field may make decisions and take extraordinary action under extraordinary circumstances. Rommel would never have issued such an order ordinarily. These actions should not neccesarily be codified as normal operating procedure.

Why not? We do want our soldiers to conform to certain standards instead of just doing anything they want to, correct? If there is a problem with the situation under the old rule, the logical thing to do is examine and change the rules. We give circumstances where certain actions are justified and the limits on those actions. Your example of Rommel shows that merely sticking to one position dogmatically is not the best thing to do. We need rules to govern us, but we have to make sure those laws make sense. We need to make sure that we are not just saying that killing is wrong instead of looking at when it is needed or not.

And your Rommel example shows that when one side will not rise to a certain moral standard, it is hard to say those reacting to it are less moral than if they initiated the actions. And we know that the folks that capture American troops will torture them. So it is not like we are initiating the actions. If they stop torturing our troops, I think we would should treat them better when we capture them. But as long as they are torturing our troops, I do not see why we should give them any more respect.


There is such a thing as the Geneva Conventions of which we are a signatory and the Law of War. Perhaps you should Google them.

I am quiet aware of them. I had to take a class on them a few decades ago. As part of that class we had to understand why they were put into place. It was not out of some sense of justice and fair play, they were signed by everyone in their own best interest. The original signers wanted their own troops to be treated well and not tortured by enraged enemy soldiers. So they agreed to certain standards that would be shown to all signers of the convention.

Now they have been watered down so that even those that refuse to follow them demand that they be protected by them. I do not see the logic in allowing that to go on. It is like someone who murders someone saying that the death penalty is immoral. If we go back to the original version, with its punishments for those that are captured who are not signers, it might cause some changes.

The argument that just because the Geneva Conventions say something means that it is moral is a sort of "appeal to authority" logical fallacy. If the Geneva conventions said we could torture anyone we pleased, would you meekly follow the rules or try to change them? We can change the conventions as they have been changed in the past. We need a debate based on logic instead of just saying that certain things are never justified.

[Jeff C.]

David, are you saying that, in certain cases, it may be justifiable to inflict what some consider to be torture on an enemy combatant? If that is the case, I think you and Don (and I) agree.

I'm curious as to which is lower on the moral scale: killing, or "torturing" someone to save other lives. "Legal" killing is considered on a case-by-case basis. Justifiable "torture" I believe should be considered on a case-by-case basis as well.

I have to chuckle morbidly when I consider how many posts I have read here about feeding this or that child molester/rapist slowly into a wood chipper. Without exception, those posts are all about killing the perpetrator slowly and excruciatingly, NOT about extracting information out of him to save other lives. Seems applicable to this conversation.

The fact that we are keeping this difficult conversation civil is a testament to the quality of the Budoseek membership.

Jeff Cook

[Don Roley]

The fact that we are keeping this difficult conversation civil is a testament to the quality of the Budoseek membership.

I must say, I am enjoying this debate. I have gained a bit of insight into how the other side of the issue feels. I hope we can keep it civil while plumbing the depths of the issue.

But maybe we should edit this out to another thread of its own?

[Jeff C.]

Don, me too. I see and agree to a great extent with BOTH sides of this issue.

I will leave it up to Robert as to whether he wants to split it out or not. By the way, I may or may not have internet access for the next two weeks (military exercise).

Jeff Cook

[Don Roley]

This seems the place to post this.

I had a friend send me an article dealing with a book titled "On Rumors" by Cass Sunstein, Obama's regulatory czar.

Some of the quotes from an earlier 1993 book titled "The Partial Constitution" really worry me. Quotes like this,


The idea that government should be neutral among all forms of speech seems right in the abstract, but as frequently applied it is no more plausible than the idea that it should be neutral between the associational interests of blacks and those of whites under conditions of segregation.

actually scare me.

Has anyone read the 1993 book and can confirm its tone? The book is a call for the return of the fairness doctrine in which the government will determine what is fair and balanced reporting. The idea that Obama would put this person in charge of an important and intrusive part of the government is very worrying IMO.