The Observation Deck

For those of us who have been involved with the Native American community, I think you might need to go back a few more years...

For those of us who have been involved with Civil Rights? The same...

For those of us....

For those of us....

For those of us....

At some point, there are only so many hours in a day....

Sidestepping the particular question of what should be done about perceived recent American controversies, I think it all the more important that we keep our future conduct in mind first and foremost.

Back to the banjo...

Gary

For the record, right or wrong, we know what happened with Native Americans, and reparations are being made. "Casinos" for one.

We know what happened with the civil rights movement, and just last year an 80-year-old was brought to trial and found guilt of acts during the 50s.

90% of the readers of this forum think, Vietnam was a legit war, East Timoor had nothing to do with us. That Gulf War 1, was legit, that bombing baby food factories were legit, that this Afghanistan and Iraq legit.

Time for us to come clean, and make ourselves an example for the world.

I am tired of being dirty, I am tired of being the bad guy, I am tired of being as bad as they are/were.

We can not just walk away.

We must grow up and face the music.

peace


.

So we find out last night that England is the better moral compass.

Um, hasn't England suffered more terrorist attacks since 9/11?

I guess the terrorists didn't get the memo.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:I am tired of being dirty, I am tired of being the bad guy, I am tired of being as bad as they are/were.

I guess we should fight terrorists with rubber bullets, stun guns, shrinks, waygu beef and kumbaya campfires? Terrorists just need a great big hug, right? And then everything will be just fine.

Bret Callentine wrote:I guess the terrorists didn't get the memo.

There are a lot of memos that terrorists don't get. The memo telling everyone that cutting off heads and slitting throats is bad. The one about not bombing buildings, the one about IEDs, brainwashing youth to become suicide bombers, etc. Many, many memos not received. But according to our president, it's all our fault.

Charlie Page wrote:

Jim O'Bryan wrote:I am tired of being dirty, I am tired of being the bad guy, I am tired of being as bad as they are/were.

I guess we should fight terrorists with rubber bullets, stun guns, shrinks, waygu beef and kumbaya campfires? Terrorists just need a great big hug, right? And then everything will be just fine.

Charlie

No terrorists need a target and a cause. Not a big hug. America gives them that, and more.

OK this is for fun over drinks I am sure, but. What premise was correct for going into Afghanistan, and Iraq?

To get Bin Ladin? This would be like destroying America to get Christopher Hitchens, a British National?

You do realize this was all a big lie? That everything GWB said, he looked you in the eye and lied about. So I will go along with mass murder, wars, over throwing countries that NEVER attacked us, etc. Is not as bad as lying about an extramarital affair between two consenting adults. I get that, but it is pretty damn bad.

Have you gotten the memo, the torture did not work, and was illegal.

I am not one for saying they did it we can do it, as seems to be the norm nowadays. I am saying it is wrong, it is illegal, and now it is time to face the music.

This country has a terrible history of doing what it wants then just sweeping it under the carpet. That is just plain bad, no evil.

FWIW


.

Have you gotten the memo, the torture did not work, and was illegal.

Actually, didn't the memo suggest that the administration believed it to be legal?

And there are some that suggest that Obama hasn't yet released the documents that would clarify whether or not it worked.

Bret Callentine wrote:

Have you gotten the memo, the torture did not work, and was illegal.

Actually, didn't the memo suggest that the administration believed it to be legal?

And there are some that suggest that Obama hasn't yet released the documents that would clarify whether or not it worked.

Yes, the memo said it was legal. If it didn't work, expect the docs to be released with big fan fare. If it did work, the info gained will be downplayed and no docs will be released or Obama will stay quiet and hope this goes away.

Brian Pedaci wrote:Who would Jesus torture?

Gosh, what an objective little observation Brian!

I didn't see the survey from Muslims on who Allah would torture. Got one?

This kind of link is what now passes as journalism. Of course it's a brilliant reflection on the "state" of the union.

In God we trust.

.

While the editorial comment was mine, the Pew Forum on Religion and Civic Culture is (to my knowledge) non-partisan and objective. The Atlantic is a moderate publication with no strong bias (which means that both liberals AND conservatives think its biased)

Perhaps I touched a nerve, and it would be more helpful to restate my question in a more respectful tone? OK then...

What teachings of Jesus would lead a Christian to accept torture as an acceptable way to treat ones enemy? What wisdom would Jesus impart on this issue to an American President in the 21st Century? "An eye for an eye", which is the gist of the argument you seem to be making, is from the Old Testament and Jesus rebuked that idea in Matthew 5:38-48 "You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.â€

Im going to recommend, once again, a fine writer and thinker, a deeply devout Catholic, who has written consistently for a long time and in the last several days almost obsessively about this subject. A writer and thinker who is deeply opposed to the use of these tactics, and who is also deeply, consistently, militantly, commited to the defeat of the Islamic terror that threatens civilization.

The saddest, most frustrating thing about this debate--here on this deck and elsewhere generally--is the notion that people who oppose the use of torture are somehow unaware of the need to "keep us safe," who are unrealistic, naive, polyannish (sp?), soft, silly, defeatist, and, of course, reflexive "libruls."
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/

...Perhaps I touched a nerve, and it would be more helpful to restate my question in a more respectful tone? OK then...

No nerves, just folly I guess.

What teachings of Jesus would lead a Christian to accept torture as an acceptable way to treat ones enemy?

You make a good argument with this question. However I cannot speak for Christians as a group, and I know of no one person who can (including the Pope which some non-Catholic Christians do not acknowledge as the Holy See).

Jesus was a Jew who died for the sins of 5000 years of slavery and inhumanity. I suspect in the intervening time until now, that torture was used to help people survive through history to continue the saga of man. I'm only guessing, because we are here through the incredible wars and carnage of those who passed before us. Those without sin cast the first stone, so to speak.

Can you vouch that your ancestors were all clean? Good chance that if they were weak, your genes would not have made it this far.

[quote]What wisdom would Jesus impart on this issue to an American President in the 21st Century? "An eye for an eye", which is the gist of the argument you seem to be making, is from the Old Testament and Jesus rebuked that idea in Matthew 5:38-48 "You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.â€

Dustin James wrote:
We turned the other cheek as Hitler slaughtered millions in Europe. Our isolationist and appeasing government under FDR was quite willing to let Europe fight the Nazis alone. All was well in our little New Deal Utopia.

But then we were hit from the other side of the world at Pearl Harbor. The slap on the cheek was too much to ignore anymore. Winning World War II saved the economy and the free world.

This is History. It may have not conformed to strict Christian values, but good triumphed over evil, which allows us the freedom to even be talking about it now.

.

Sadly, this just isn't true. FDR was itching to get into WWII but didn't know how to do it with so much opposition from the general populace. He allowed Pearl Harbor to happen in order to incite the American people into war. This is a documented fact. Kind of like the way our current population was drawn into endless war in the middle east by the same type of operation on 911.

Not the best source but a summary for you who think the mainstream press is news:

http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/PNAC.htm

Part of the Challenge of World War II was keeping the germans from a permanent truce or even an alliance with the Soviets. If they had this they could probably have held most of Europe.

America kept the allies armed, provisioned, and fed well before we formally entered the war. This was also a way of ramping up our capacity for when we entered the war.

A Bush would not have been smart enough to do this. It took years of maneuvering.


Whether or not the Roosevelt Administration acquiesced to Pearl Harbor bombing or not, Nazi Germany and America had the wiggle room to not escalate into full blown war with each other after Pearl Harbor. It could have stayed between us and Japan. Fortunately America and Germany did go to war, and today we have much better memorabilia and movies and for a while even more economic clout.

World War II was a war between peers. Invading Iraq was a Turkey Shoot. It is obviously difficult work for the Americans there. But Iraq was miniscule against the power of the United States.

War is a form of government make work. it is somehow more acceptable.

Here is what the war against Iraq did to decrease the odds of future terrorist attacks against the United States. Overthrowing Saddam Hussein did nothing to deter future terrorist attacks against the United States. Future Terrorist attacks against the United States will be carried out by college graduates from muslim nations that are allies of the United States. Just like 9/11. They're young and vigorous and feeling noble. like David against Goliath. Or by guys like Timothy McVeigh or David Koresh or Charles Manson.

Dustin James wrote:Jesus was a Jew who died for the sins of 5000 years of slavery and inhumanity. I suspect in the intervening time until now, that torture was used to help people survive through history to continue the saga of man. I'm only guessing, because we are here through the incredible wars and carnage of those who passed before us. Those without sin cast the first stone, so to speak.

Can you vouch that your ancestors were all clean? Good chance that if they were weak, your genes would not have made it this far.

Dustin, if you care to, I'm really going to need you to explain this passage to me to understand what you mean. Torture, if it doesn't kill you, makes you stronger so you can survive better? So it's a good thing?

Large portions of America were built using slave labor. Without it, America wouldn't be what she is today. Even if some distant ancestors of mine, two hundred or even thousands of years ago, may have owned slaves, I can feel pretty confident in calling that practice unethical, wrong and even evil. Despite the utility of it, it's a practice that can no longer be justified.

You have an attitude that attributes some cruel acts of a limited number of individuals, with ALL other situations, some of which have saved thousands of lives. This broad stroke of logic serves nothing, because it negates the positive that some of these so called tortures revealed.

Tom Bodett had a brilliant quote on the radio show "Wait Wait Don't Tell Me" last Saturday. He said defending torture with the useful information gotten as a result was like accusing a shoplifter of stealing things, and the guy says "call it what you will, but look at all this great stuff I got!"

There's no doubt that any number of "enhanced interrogation techniques" CAN elicit truthful and useful information. I don't think I really need to explain to you the fallacy of allowing the ends to justify the means. Do I?

Yeah. I have not seen us beheading journalists on TV yet. Water boarding did not kill anyone. But it probably saved thousands. Four CIA directors including the current one said it was unnecessary and dangerous to reveal our techniques. To what end? To "appear" more civilized? Being more civilized is a wonderful goal and one we should always try to attain, but without throwing the baby out with the bath water.

So... how do we become more civilized by hiding evidence of our barbarism? I only want our country to treat our detainees with the same basic human respect we'd ask other entities to treat our soldiers. Again, we imprison American citizens who have information that could be useful in saving lives and imprisoning other criminals. Why don't we waterboard them to get the information out of them?

I don't know why you have a problem with Christians, but they are an easy target because of their primitive teachings in such an enlightened and progressive time of wisdom.

I have no problem with Christians, and I'm not sure if you're trying to put words in my mouth here or expressing your own opinion.

There really is no answer to what Jesus would do. Strict adherence to his teachings may in fact have shut the world down centuries ago. But man interpreted those teachings and got it half right. The bible is a metaphor in my opinion, because man is imperfect and wrote the darn thing. Don't confuse hope with faith. There is a difference.

That's a brave and independent sentiment to share, and I respect you for that.