US Politics VIII

[Tempra]

Yet the one was not illegal while the other is.

Because our side won.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Bush was willing to cause KSM some temporary discomfort (and possibly long term psychological damage) if it meant saving the lives of thousands of American civilians (Truman was willing to do far worse). He took an oath to do everything in his power to protect Americans from foreign threats. If another attack occured, would he be able to tell the American people that he did everything he could to protect them.

The British didn't torture captured German spies during WWII - and they were in a far, far more desperate plight than the US vs Al Qaeda.

Fact is, torture is utterly counterproductive. The Bush Administration would have known that, but we can't let a little thing like facts get in the way of a bit of bona fide sadism, can we?

[Lord O' Bones]

Because our side won.

Please show me the pre-1945 legislation prohibiting bombing during war.

[Tempra]

The British didn't torture captured German spies during WWII - and they were in a far, far more desperate plight than the US vs Al Qaeda.

Fact is, torture is utterly counterproductive. The Bush Administration would have known that, but we can't let a little thing like facts get in the way of a bit of bona fide sadism, can we?

Like, really. Remember that time Bush ate muslim babies for breakfast?

[tzanth]

Wiping out tens of thousands of Japanese civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a terrible act, an evil act. But the alternative (a land invasion of Japan) would have cost far more allied soldier and Japanese civiilian lives. It was a choice between the lesser of two evils. Does that make Harry Truman a war criminal?

Not to threatjack or anything, but Truman was a war criminal because he was never faced with any such choice. The "a-bomb prevented a land invasion" narrative is an american post-war fantasy.

[The_BlauerDragon]

Like, really. Remember that time Bush ate muslim babies for breakfast?

And he was able to keep them down without throwing them up all over a foreign dignitary... unlike his daddy!

Besides, wasn't that the day that he and Obama were discussing the economic crisis over breakfast?

[Tempra]

Please show me the pre-1945 legislation prohibiting bombing during war.

Please show me the pre-Nuremberg legislation prohibiting what the Nazis did. If you find any, you have your answer.

[Tempra]

Not to threatjack or anything, but Truman was a war criminal because he was never faced with any such choice. The "a-bomb prevented a land invasion" narrative is an american post-war fantasy.

Let me guess, the Japanese were going to surrender? :rolleyes:

[tzanth]

Let me guess, the Japanese were going to surrender? :rolleyes:

We've been over this before, and I doubt anyone wants to go over it again, but I believe the answer is quite obviously 'yes.'

[Tempra]

I think his point was that the Truman comparison to the current situation is a flawed one.

Comparisons tend to be flawed when they don't support your argument. His point was that Truman didn't break the law. I said he did had we lost. What we did to the Nazis could have easily been done to us. If not for Hiroshima/Nagasaki, then certainly for the bombing of dresden or the "shoot anything that moves" policy of the USAF(and well all AFs).

[Shryke]

I think his point was that the Truman comparison to the current situation is a flawed one.

No, Tzanth honestly believes that the dropping of the 2 atomic bombs was a huge war crime. We've been over this extensively a few times in the past.

[Lord O' Bones]

No, Tzanth honestly believes that the dropping of the 2 atomic bombs was a huge war crime. We've been over this extensively a few times in the past.

Not Tzanth's point. I'm saying torture was illegal when we did it. Explicitly.

Dropping a nuclear bomb was not.

However horrible, either case, in only one case was the law explicitly broken.

[El-ahrairah]

We've been over this before, and I doubt anyone wants to go over it again, but I believe the answer is quite obviously 'yes.'

I agree the attack on Nippon was unjustified. But we still should have dropped the bomb... on the USSR.

[Max the Mostly Mediocre]

Roughing up a terrorist and doing nothing while civilians die are both evil acts, but one is far worse, it's not even close. It shouldn't be our policy, but neither is dropping nukes on enemy cities.

You obviously didn't read the paper. Equally obviously, you need to.

[The_BlauerDragon]

Violence begets violence. Torture a man sufficiently and he'll tell you anything (whether it is true or not) just to make you stop. You'll gain information, it just won't be viable information. No, roughing up a few "terrorists" is a far greater, and far less productive, evil than doing nothing at all. It is also a tool which should never be entrusted to a government. As I said before, if you are willing to allow torture to be carried out, or rights to be utterly violated in any fashion, then you should never delude yourself into thinking that you will not some day be on the receiving end of it. What goes around not only comes around, but it gains momentum and force in the process. I guess another way of putting that would be to say that if you want to be the "good guy", you can never do the things that the "bad guys" do.

ETA: Oh, and if the man that you locked away without his rights and tortured was not hell bent on seeing you brought down before you took him in, odds are he damned sure will be if he's ever released.

[The Marquis de Leech]

But we still should have dropped the bomb... on the USSR.

This would have the destroyed the goodwill of allied citizens (who had spent the last four years thinking of the Russians as allies) in the most spectacular way possible, as well as pretty much confirming every bit of negative propaganda Stalin ever put out about the West. If you wanted to incite massive outpourings of pro-communist feeling, dropping the bomb on the USSR in 1945 would have been the best possible way to do it.

[Annelise]

The best we can do is hope that the people that make the rulebook decisions are of the utmost integrety and honor and use everything they can before resorting to "physical persusion" or some other such foul deeds. As long as the best people are guarding our borders and collecting the intel, and making the decisions...then their judgement should be trusted on how those decisions are made. (this is a whole can of worms if and of itself of course)

So don't legalize it but keep that secret camp ready, just in case. Gotcha.

[Serious Callers Only]

Bizarre fascist mentality.

[Piper]

Please show me the pre-Nuremberg legislation prohibiting what the Nazis did. If you find any, you have your answer.

The Kellog-Briand pact was a solid basis for trying the Nazis on one of the counts, crimes against peace.

The Martens Clause of the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions is pretty good grounds for the crimes against humanity and war crimes counts. (This one could easily be turned against Truman for the nukes if the tables were turned.)

[Tempra]

The Kellog-Briand pact was a solid basis for trying the Nazis on one of the counts, crimes against peace.

The Martens Clause of the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions is pretty good grounds for the crimes against humanity and war crimes counts. (This one could easily be turned against Truman for the nukes if the tables were turned.)

Thank you.

Lord O' Bones, you have your answer.