Printable View
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore
Sure, interview everyone. But the report is derived from millions of official records including emails that were all contemporaneous.
So if the interviewee denies it, they were either lying then, or they're lying now.
For an up-close look at this I'd recommend the book "Unbroken" true story of an American POW in WWII. Also made into a movie coming out this month.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
Wanted: Compassionate Foster Care Homes For Former Gitmo Detainees, while they are integrated and assimilated into American Society, and become naturalized citizens. It's the very LEAST we can do for them, after the injustice perpetrated on them by those Republicans. Won't you please open your home and your heart for the less fortunate? Thankk Mee.
Any movie on the subject will be screwed up, I guarantee you. Does any mooovvee director ever get it right? The good ol' USA did this: shortly before the Armistice(or right after) the U.S. military hanged 6 or 8 German POW's at Leavenworth who had allegedly murdered other POW's, the motive being that the victim's were co-operating with their captors, IOW, informants. Earlier on in the War, a group of German U-Boat personnel who had landed on the east coast as would-be saboteurs, were captured, and executed as spies in the electric chair in the District of Columbia. The operatives were selected by the Germans for the mission, because these individuals had at one time lived in the US and spoke English. Except for arriving as planned, they had not as yet even begun to carry out their mission; it is thought that some of them may have intended to defect, and readily surrendered. I've also read that many German POWS held at camps in the USA actually wanted to stay, after the war. But, no--they got sent home, anyway. Even though Germans immigrants historically have made pretty good citizens and readily assimilate. How do you like that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lainey
Your foster home comment made me laugh out loud:D.
I was appalled and heartbroken for my country (was it 2 years ago? 3? 4?) when it came out about waterboarding the prisoners. And they were debating back then as to whether this was torture?!!! Hello?!!
I am more appalled and heartbroken for my country today. Admittedly I have only been exposed to Matt Taibi's (sp.) article, but still.....
More on the Torture Report. Dick Cheney, who has been out of the limelight for a few years, got some attention by holding a news conference. He stated words to the effect that if he had to do it all over again, waterboarding would still have been in the plan. What do you think of that?
I'm not sure what to think or feel.
Supposedly we consider ourselves as having the market on being humane, but at the same time do tons of things in this world that are inhumane. And it's the double edged sword of being in a country that wants everything to be transparent. How the heck are we supposed to make our country safe while showing our hand to its destroyers? I think, while some of our hopes and dreams for a more humane world might be reasonable, I think we're a very naive bunch for the most part. We've been safe and secure (relatively) for so long that we don't have a clue as to what real terrorism is (except for 9-11) that we can enjoy having unrealistic feelings towards how to achieve the greatest safety for the greatest number of people.
On the other hand......I'm sure there are people in the intelligence groups who go too far........just like people in every group.
But mostly I think we're just naive and can get all uppity about certain things out of living in what has been a really safe country (which is rapidly changing........maybe because we are too soft on bad people??)
Yes, it is contradictory to want to be THE most powerful and influential nation in the world, and at the same time, do everything in a nice way so as to be above reproach from critics, and not make even more enemies in the process. I'm not sure the USA needs to rule the world, at all costs. The Fanatics always have to have a bogeyman, some -ism to oppose, on the other side of the world. But, it's probably a bad idea. Empires finally burn out, after awhile. Cheney is one of those people I think who figures : What's good for me, Dickie, is good. I don't think he has any other philosophy to guide him. His rise to power is one that sounds interesting--if I can find a book(and I'm sure there are lots) that doesn't sugar-coat his story or isn't too extreme at Cheney-bashing, either, I might read it.
It may be contradictory to have an empire and not torture - although I'm not sure it wouldn't be far preferable and more humane to have one of the other contenders as empire (they might very well be more humane, but even failing that they might at least keep the torture contained sad to say, when Lydie England is doing it you know things are very far gone). As for whether anyone wants an empire, oh I don't recall tell me when was it on the ballot again?
Other things may be equally contradictory, like having a society in which the people in the highest positions of power condone torture, and some profit off it, go scott free, everyone knows it, and wanting a humane society that values human life. Like having an army that goes and occupies countries all over the world and engages in torture, it did under W of course in Iraq etc., and expecting none of that to seep into domestic law enforcement. Wanting torture without blowback, now that may be a contradiction if ever there was one. Karma police ...