Originally posted by: chucky2
My "lame" excuse is I expect my POTUS, US intelligence agencies, and US military to do whatever they need to do within reason to protect me, my family, and the other 300M of us here in the US (and abroad).
Then you're right. Your excuse is lame. Like any President, your mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief raised his hand and took
this oath of office:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
There is no "Time Out" or "Kings X" clause in the Constitution. All of the acts you say you are so willing to allow violate that oath. That makes every one of them anything but "within reason."
If that includes non-intrusive electronic monitoring by a computer to my phone conversation with Aunt Brit over in the UK, talking about the proper mix of the tortellini filling, then I guess I'll have to be "invaded" like that. If that includes strapping a few (not a million, not a few hundred thousand, not a thousand, not a hundred, not 50, etc) POS's that are laughing at their interrogators (because a.) they're committed, and b.) they know we basically don't torture, so waiting out the interrogator is fine with them, they've got all the time on their hands being in prison) and who would gladly kill as many of us as they could, to a bench and pour water over their face, then 'Ol Harv, so be it.
Who makes this grand determination of whose Constitutional rights should be shredded and which people to torture?
We KNOW they lied to us. We KNOW they have tortured innocent captives. Why should we believe they're right or that they're even telling us the truth about those they abuse... if they tell us anything at all? :shocked:
Talk to us about what you'd allow after someone in power determines that YOU are one of the "few (not a million, not a few hundred thousand, not a thousand, not a hundred, not 50, etc) POS's" who has such information or who deserves to have their Constitutional rights abused. It doesn't matter whether or not it's true. All they have to do is "believe" you have such information to justify to themselves that you should be tortured. In fact, they don't even have to believe it because they can just as easily lie about it or simply remain silent, and no one will know.
Of course, if it's not true, you won't be able to give them what they want, but either you'll tell them something... anything to stop the torture, in which case, they won't have gained anything useful, or you'll die, and we'll be rid of one more wannabe torturer.
Originally posted by: rchiu
It's obvious that you let your person hatred against Bush & Co get in the way of this war crime/torture business. American killed huge numbers of Japanese civilian with the 2 atom bomb and German civilian with firebombs in Dresden, and Bush/CIA with this torture business killed exactly ZERO enemy combatant. You see the difference here? But do we hear you just and righteous people talk about those who committed war crime back in WW2?
Thanks for the strawman. Your argument is complete and utter bullshit. All you prove is that you're a brainless, immoral POS who knows absolutely nothing about anything, including and especially ethics, morals, history and law.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Obviously, you know nothing about the decision to drop nuclear weapons on Japan. As President Truman notes in these
excerpts from his diary, he wasn't happy about dropping nuclear bombs on Japan.
8/9/45: Excerpt from public statement by President Truman. This was the second time he had publicly given reasons for using the atomic bomb on Japan:
"The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians. But that attack is only a warning of things to come. If Japan does not surrender, bombs will have to be dropped on her war industries and, unfortunately, thousands of civilian lives will be lost.
"Having found the bomb we have used it. We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans.
"We shall continue to use it until we completely destroy Japan's power to make war. Only a Japanese surrender will stop us." (Public Papers of the Presidents, Harry S. Truman, 1945, pg. 212).
[Even before Hiroshima was a-bombed, hundreds of thousands of civilians had been killed in the conventional bombings of over 60 of Japan's largest cities (Michael Sherry, "The Rise of American Air Power", pg. 314-315, and pg. 413, note 43). Was President Truman unaware that Hiroshima was primarily a city of civilians and that they would be the a-bomb's main victims? Note his reason (8/10/45 below) for halting the atomic bombings.]
8/9/45 Letter to Senator Richard Russell:
[In response to Sen. Russell's wish that Japan be hit with more atomic and conventional bombing:]
"I know that Japan is a terribly cruel and uncivilized nation in warfare but I can't bring myself to believe that, because they are beasts, we should ourselves act in the same manner.
"For myself, I certainly regret the necessity of wiping out whole populations because of the 'pigheadedness' of the leaders of a nation and, for your information, I am not going to do it until it is absolutely necessary...
"My object is to save as many American lives as possible but I also have a humane feeling for the women and children in Japan." (Barton Bernstein, Understanding the Atomic Bomb and the Japanese Surrender: Missed Opportunities, Little-Known Near Disasters, and Modern Memory, Diplomatic History, Spring 1995, material quoted from pg. 267-268).
[8/10/45: Japan makes surrender offer to Allies.]
[8/10/45: Having received reports and photographs of the effects of the Hiroshima bomb, Truman ordered a halt to further atomic bombings. Sec. of Commerce Henry Wallace recorded in his diary on the 10th, "Truman said he had given orders to stop atomic bombing. He said the thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible. He didn't like the idea of killing, as he said, 'all those kids'." (John Blum, ed., "The Price of Vision: the Diary of Henry A. Wallace, 1942-1946", pg. 473-474).]
President Truman approved the use of nuclear weapons because he believed it would shorten the war and save many more American lives that would otherwise be lost in an invasion of Japan, itself.
Operation Downfall was the U.S. plan for the invasion of Japan. It didn't happen because Japan surrendered after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We will never know how many lives would actually have been lost in that invasion, but the record does include estimated losses:
Operation Downfall
Operation Downfall was the overall Allied plan for the invasion of Japan near the end of World War II. The operation was cancelled when Japan surrendered after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the Soviet Union's declaration of war against Japan.
.
.
Estimated casualties
Because the U.S. military planners assumed "that operations in this area will be opposed not only by the available organized military forces of the Empire, but also by a fanatically hostile population", high casualties were thought to be inevitable, but nobody knew with certainty how high. Several people made estimates, but they varied widely in numbers, assumptions, and purposes ? which included advocating for and against the invasion ? afterwards, they were reused to debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Casualty estimates were based on the experience of the preceding campaigns, drawing different lessons:
- In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.
- A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea.[38] A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days. When these figures were questioned by General Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.
- In a conference with President Truman on June 18, Marshall, taking the Battle of Luzon as the best model for Olympic, thought the Americans would suffer 31,000 casualties in the first 30 days (and ultimately 20% of Japanese casualties, which implied a total of 70,000 casualties). Adm. Leahy, more impressed by the Battle of Okinawa, thought the American forces would suffer a 35% casualty rate (implying an ultimate toll of 268,000).[42] Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000.
Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa, and troop transports off Kyushu would have been much more exposed.
- A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.
Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities, and were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."
Dresden
The first sentence in
Wikipedia's entry about the Bombing of Dresden shows how full of shit you are.
Bombing of Dresden in World War II
The Bombing of Dresden by the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and United States Army Air Force (USAAF) between 13 February and 15 February 1945, twelve weeks before the surrender of the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) of Nazi Germany, remains one of the most controversial Allied actions of the Second World War.
.
.
(continues)
It's too late to second guess the results of not bombing Dresden, and it's too late to undo the damage. It's never too late to mourn the loss of life and to acknowledge and learn from our mistakes... with the possible exception of immoral assholes like you.
Originally posted by: rchiu
Just on the point of whether al-qaeda operatives are protected is already hotly debated as Al-Qaeda not only did not sign the Geneva convention, they have demonstrated that they have not and will not follow Geneva convention in this war.
So, by your perverted "logic," that's sufficient reason for us to abandon our humanity? :shocked:
IT IS NOT! We will NEVER defeat evil by becoming the evil we seek to defeat. YOU have already lost that battle. :thumbsdown: :|
Facebook
Twitter