Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by SuspectCorner, May 22, 2009.
Are we not talking about every day language here?
Like I said, if you're going to have a precise discussion about the language, then you have to have a precise discussion about the language. Up until the point when everyone isn't on the same page, colloquialisms will do.
I'm pretty sure we have the high ground morally and ethically. We're not beheading people.
Well this administration has covered it's posterior, and has followed Bush's lead. We are now out sourcing our inhanced interrogation, I feel morally justified now.
The United States is now relying heavily on foreign intelligence services to capture, interrogate and detain all but the highest-level terrorist suspects seized outside the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, according to current and former American government officials.
The change represents a significant loosening of the reins for the United States, which has worked closely with allies to combat violent extremism since the 9/11 attacks but is now pushing that cooperation to new limits.
In the past 10 months, for example, about a half-dozen midlevel financiers and logistics experts working with Al Qaeda have been captured and are being held by intelligence services in four Middle Eastern countries after the United States provided information that led to their arrests by local security services, a former American counterterrorism official said.
The current approach, which began in the last two years of the Bush administration and has gained momentum under Mr. Obama, is driven in part by court rulings and policy changes that have closed the secret prisons run by the Central Intelligence Agency, and all but ended the transfer of prisoners from outside Iraq and Afghanistan to American military prisons.
The United States itself has not detained any high-level terrorist suspects outside Iraq and Afghanistan since Mr. Obama took office, and the question of where to detain the most senior terrorist suspects on a long-term basis is being debated within the new administration. Even deciding where the two Qaeda suspects in Pakistani custody will be kept over the long term is “extremely, extremely sensitive right now,” a senior American military official said, adding, “They’re both bad dudes. The issue is: where do they get parked so they stay parked?”
Gateway Pundit is the source
I believe America has the moral high ground here, at least we have prisoners.
It's not about high-ground. It's about hypocrisy and setting the standard. That's what I'm saying. Yes, it's a complex issue and there is a lot to be considered, but I think that's the ethically correct thing to do. That is, don't torture.
Another point I'd like to make is that if we're supposed to be the adversaries of freedom and justice in the world, why would we advocate torture?
That's what adversaries would do to freedom and justice.
I doubt you meant adversaries.
Yeah, i meant adversaries against those who *oppose freedom and justice.
I stand corrected on my diction, but thanks for helping me clarify my thought.
Thats what you meant,right?
So, we are adversaries of freedom and justice?
Are you really trying to take the words that you wrote and assign them to me? I quoted you remember? Those are your words, not mine. I was quoting you.
Are you under some power lines or are you eating paste?
It's led paint. I've been eating it for years. You know that.
I know you have had so much of it you don't know the adjective and the compound is spelled "lead."
"Led" is the past participle of the action of leading.
Off with my head! :laugh1:
It's off limits here, but I could recommend a couple places to go visit where they would be more then happy to oblige you.
I was alluding to the Queen of England, of course.
Go find a dictionary,before I start thinking your prior post was no accident.
...let me know when you find a sense of humor.