It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen
Even Abu Ghraib was not that bad. Where the U.S. might of had hooded prisoners standing on a milk crate with mock electrical cables attached to them,
Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen
Even Abu Ghraib was not that bad. Where the U.S. might of had hooded prisoners standing on a milk crate with mock electrical cables attached to them
Originally posted by Operation AJAX
reply to post by TheAgentNineteen
Ah, the war on terroism.......
Operating secret courts? Rendition aircraft? Torture? Sounds very Orwellian to me? No doubt its something the Soviet Union era KGB would applaud, but how does it match up to our system of rights and habeas corpus? How many do you think are going to released? I have no problem with trying them and putting them in jail. But to hold them indefinetly without charges on the say so of an administration that has lied and cheated the American people is beyond what Im willing to accept.
If we cannot live up to the tennants and principals of our Constituion and Our Bill of Rights are we really better than the terrorists?
Originally posted by jsobecky
Who should be the beneficiary of that work? This is where I think a case can be made for the idea that certain rights should be extended to our citizens, and not to everyone, esp. not those whose goal it is to slaughter us. It is the responsibility of each individual society and/or culture to create the kind of world that they want to live in.
So what happens when those societies or cultures clash? Should we allow the adversary the benefits of our system, while they exploit it to their advantage? Should we continue to turn the other cheek for the sake of some noble ideal? Should we suffer the indignities of inhumane treatment because it makes a great slogan?
Good never wins out simply because it is right. Sometimes it is necessary to amputate the diseased limb, as cruel as that sounds, else the cancer will spread to all the body and eventually kill it.
Originally posted by intrepid
jso, we've occasionally agreed on topics, disagreed on most but I must say this is the most frightening post I've seen here.
Originally posted by jsobecky
Who should be the beneficiary of that work? This is where I think a case can be made for the idea that certain rights should be extended to our citizens, and not to everyone, esp. not those whose goal it is to slaughter us. It is the responsibility of each individual society and/or culture to create the kind of world that they want to live in.
Originally posted by intrepid
It wouldn't be frightening if it wasn't for the fact that the US has the POWER to adapt it's "culture" to "creating the WORLD" of choice.
Originally posted by jsobecky
So what happens when those societies or cultures clash? Should we allow the adversary the benefits of our system, while they exploit it to their advantage? Should we continue to turn the other cheek for the sake of some noble ideal? Should we suffer the indignities of inhumane treatment because it makes a great slogan?
Originally posted by intrepid
We're talking about detainees of the US forces right? How are they "exploiting" anything to "their advantage"? What "indignities" are they doing to your "culture"?
Originally posted by jsobecky
Good never wins out simply because it is right. Sometimes it is necessary to amputate the diseased limb, as cruel as that sounds, else the cancer will spread to all the body and eventually kill it.
Originally posted by intrepid
No, a cancer is an internal thing. What you are proposing is "amputating" someone elses limb for what you perceive as a "cancer".
Originally posted by jsobecky
Who should be the beneficiary of that work? This is where I think a case can be made for the idea that certain rights should be extended to our citizens, and not to everyone, esp. not those whose goal it is to slaughter us.
It is the responsibility of each individual society and/or culture to create the kind of world that they want to live in.
So what happens when those societies or cultures clash? Should we allow the adversary the benefits of our system, while they exploit it to their advantage? Should we continue to turn the other cheek for the sake of some noble ideal? Should we suffer the indignities of inhumane treatment because it makes a great slogan?
Good never wins out simply because it is right. Sometimes it is necessary to amputate the diseased limb, as cruel as that sounds, else the cancer will spread to all the body and eventually kill it.
Originally posted by Level X
reply to post by Operation AJAX
the moral ---- Americans participate in a false patriotic bubble, flying flags and slicing apple pies to prove they are down with Uncle Sam. They don't understand their patriotism is only a smoke screen to hide the overwelming quilty veridicts passed out to us by the rest of the natural world.
Other countries see America for what it is --- Why can't we??
Originally posted by Operation AJAX
reply to post by jsobecky
Jso,
I maintain we if we cannot keep to the pricipals and tennats of our constitution, we are no better that those we are fighting. Yes, sometimes it puts us at a disadvantage when prosecuting these animals, but so be it.
Republics do not sucumb to external pressures and forces untill they decay from within. If we can so casually discard parts of our constituion and bill of rights then that decay may already be under way.
Good will only triumph when it stays true to its ideals and principals. Once it strays it becomes no different that those it is fighting
More violations of the Constitution probably occurred during Abraham Lincoln’s four years as president than during any other cohesively defined era in American history. Many have pointed out that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to jail war protesters, shut down hundreds of newspapers that disagreed with his war, established a draft for the first time in American history (except in the seceded South, which had a draft a year earlier), instituted restrictions on firearms, and sent troops to violently suppress the New York draft riot. He also used the war to push through the "American System," a program of de facto nationalization of the transportation industry via massive subsidies to corporations that would agree to build "internal improvements" – railroads, waterways, and canals. The victory of the Union in 1865 not only established that, contrary to popular political theory in the antebellum era, the federal government was completely supreme over the states; it also established that a president could do literally anything he could get away with, no matter how many liberties were suspended, innocents jailed, and people killed in the process.
Originally posted by neformore
Originally posted by jsobecky
It is the responsibility of each individual society and/or culture to create the kind of world that they want to live in.
If thats the case then why do alot of Americans seek to mock other cultures? If people want to live as they do, thats their right, isn't it?
Originally posted by neformore
If you want to be respected, and have your views and ways adopted, then the only way to get your message across is to treat your enemies better than they would treat you. You cannot, ever, hold the moral high ground if you revert to being the same as those you seek to condemn. If your ideas and goals are strong enough then they will stand up and be adopted by other people. Thats the US that everyone knows and loves. "Truth Justice and the American way" not "pre-emptive strikes, rendition and lies".
Originally posted by seagull
I've seen calls for us to fight fire with fire, I've even advocated that myself upon occaision. Well, I was wrong...we can't beat them by playing by their rules, they wrote the rules, they know the game better than we do. To beat them, we must show character, along with the resolve that we've so far shown.
Originally posted by magicmushroom
JSO your obviously in denial of what your nation has done and what it stands for, if you go around kicking people they are going to kick back, so dont kick in the first place.
Originally posted by magicmushroom
How many Vietnamese harmed a US citizen or where a threat to them, how many Koreans, Iraqis or Afganis not to mention all those countries where your Goverment has tried or suceeded in assasinating other leaders/politicians.
The US has been resposible for the deaths of milliions and you wonder why people hate America and what it stands for, well its simple keep invading other peoples countries and they will fight back with whatever means at their disposal and in my book they have a God given right to do so. I'm sure if the US was invaded and occupide you would welcome the aggressors into your home.
Being a true Patriot is to protect your own people from any threat from your own Goverment poses to said people it does not mean going on a global killing spree.
Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by magicmushroom
Originally posted by magicmushroom
Being a true Patriot is to protect your own people from any threat from your own Goverment poses to said people it does not mean going on a global killing spree.
You're way out there, dude, past Neptune. You obviously hate the US and you're looking for someone to lay blame on. Well, it's not me you're looking for.