OCD hearts Allen West (Page 2)

StuckInTheSixties:

Fact:
The "information" given was that from a guy being beaten, having his head stuffed into a "clearing barrel" (I'm sure you know what that is), a pistol discharged in that clearing barrel while his head was stuffed in there, and then being told by West that if he didn't start talking, he was going to be executed right then and there.

Fact:
Hamoodi said that any "information" obtained during that interrogation was invented in order to come up with something, anything, in order to prevent his being executed.

Fact: That "information" did not lead to any sort of prevention of any attack against any US forces. It was baseless.

Fact:
Hamoodi, nor anyone else (except the soldiers involved) were ever charged with any crime. Nor was any evidence found that in any way corroborated the informer's claim about Hamoodi.

As I said, I didn't write that for reasons of impugning the character of Lt. Colonel Allen West, THE SOLDIER. Was West not now a politician twisting the facts for political reasons, I'd have little or nothing to say about this.

Your abbreviated version of the incident may be his version, and you may believe it. I'm not inclined to take it on faith, particularly when that version of the incident is so different from that which much more compelling evidence indicates.

davidk14: Fact:

Many people are pissed off that a black man, a conservative republican black man is a hero. Many I guess like you, just can't stand that a hero like West wasn't charged with something like crimes against humanity for that incident.

West has a impeccable record and was elected after he retired from a 20+ year military career in a huge democratic district in Florida that had been the only African American to be voted into that office since 1876 not only because of his integrity as a soldier, but also as an African American conservative.

West received his bachelor of arts degree from the University of Tennessee and his master's degree in political science from Kansas State University. He also earned a masters of military arts and sciences degree from the U.S. Army Command and General Staff Officer College in political theory and military history and operations.


This is not a man who makes crap up.



West's awards and decorations include:

Bronze Star

Meritorious Service Medal (two Oak Leaf Clusters)

Army Commendation Medal (two Oak Leaf Clusters, one Valor Device)

Army Achievement Medal (one Oak Leaf Cluster)

Valorous Unit Award

Air Assault Badge

Master Parachutist Badge



West has received the following service medals and ribbons

National Defense Service Medal (with bronze star device)

Southwest Asia Service Medal

Army Service Ribbon

Army Overseas Service Ribbon (multiple awards)

Saudi Arabia Kuwait Liberation Medal W/Palm Tree and Kuwait Liberation Medal


You don't believe him. Fine. Then who could you ever believe in.

.

StuckInTheSixties:

davidk14 says:
"Many people are pissed off that a black man, a conservative republican black man is a hero. Many I guess like you, just can't stand that a hero like West wasn't charged with something like crimes against humanity for that incident."

Who's pissed off here in this thread? You, or me? Who's taking it personally, and casting aspersions here? You, or me?

I couldn't care less about his race. You know that. You know me well enough to know that. Have I ever shown the slightest indication of racism anywhere? You really owe me an apology for that one, david.

And didn't I make it clear (twice) that my criticism with West isn't for his military service? Again - Was West not now a politician twisting the facts for political reasons, I'd have little or nothing to say about this.

david, you and I both know that these Forums are rampant with people that simply despise the military - specifically AMERICAN military - simply because they are American military. And you know that I am not one of those. Not only am I not part of the Wireclub Military Haters Brigade, I have been outspokenly supportive of the members of our military, even while often having huge criticisms with American foreign policy sending them into harms way. The individuals, the men and women that serve, have a special place in my heart. I am not abashed in the slightest about that. Perhaps it's because I was a military brat, but I don't think so. I think it's just because I care for those people, and care about the fact that they are willing to sacrifice for the likes of you and I.

That said, they have the same moral responsibilities as the rest of us. A distinguished military career does not entitle anyone from being judged for their actions just like the rest of us.

davidk14 says:
"West has a impeccable record"

No, he doesn't. He has a flawed military record that if not for the flaw, would be distinguished.

davidk14 says:
"... and was elected after he retired from a 20+ year military career in a huge democratic district in Florida that had been the only African American to be voted into that office since 1876 not only because of his integrity as a soldier, but also as an African American conservative ... West received his ... [followed by a long list of his accomplishments] ..."

Those are all things he should take pride in.

davidk14 says:
"You don't believe him. Fine. Then who could you ever believe in."

Again, like with the racism charge, you're lashing out at me personally, rather than arguing against the points of my argument.

Look, distinguished veterans are human just like the rest of us. And like the rest of us, they have to answer for their actions. That distinguished career doesn't give them a special license.

I was saddened at the sight of war hero Duke Cunningham being sent off to prison, as I'm sure you were. (His list of medals, citations, awards, accomplishments, etc. is mighty impressive too. There's no need for me to post it here, is there?) And while I'm in no way comparing the scale of Cunningham's transgression to West's, Cunningham makes my point. A distinguished military record doesn't, nor should it, obscure the other aspects of a person's life.

My beef with West is that he's a hypocrite, not that he's black, a veteran, a Republican, or anything else.

davidk14: .

I agree with some of your points, and some I don't.

.

OCD_OCD: I was talking to a person in the military a while back and we were discussing the pros and cons of getting information from prisoners and he said something that made me think: "if it were your husband, father, daughter, child, etc. who was in danger, could you or would you torture someone to keep them from harm or to get them back?"

My answer was "yes". I could and I would.

He then said that there are people in the military who would do that for anyone's husband, father, daughter, child, etc. rather than just their own. It did made me look at it a bit differently.

StuckInTheSixties:

Just consider if that is the path that you would want our country to go down. Actually, we've gone down that path already ... so consider whether or not we would want to continue down that path. That path is beset with ethical landmines, and traveling that path comes at a huge price.

Military actions will be in our future, I'm sure you'll agree. Remember back to the first war in the Persian Gulf. Remember how despicable it was when a few unlucky Coalition prisoners were paraded in front of Saddam's television cameras, and how the world saw their condition, that they had obviouisly been beaten badly, that they were being forced to recite scripted speeches about US "aggression," "injustice" "warmongering," etc. etc.

Remember that?

That was an important battle in the court of world opinion.

If the US embraces the notion of torture - we've lost that battle. By embracing torture, we surrender the ethical high ground. We surrender our values. And we surrender in any argument that an enemy shouldn't torture our own people.

It baffles me that people would so willingly be willing to surrender that way, to slither around down there in that sewage-filled gutter with the likes of the tyrants of the world. I can understand how a soldier could be short-sighted in that way. That soldier is being subjected to the worst of human behavior - war - and is being subjected to witnessing the maiming and killing of comrades. So I can understand why a soldier might not share my sentiments.

But you and I aren't there, being subjected to that. We don't have that excuse. We have the luxury of distant objectivity, which soldiers on the line don't have.

It really boils down to this:

Do you want to slither in the ethical gutter with the slimy tyrants of the world, and pay the price for that?

Or do you want to walk upright on ethical high ground, and pay the price for that?

Either way, there's a price to be paid.

OCD_OCD: all that shows me is that the world expects the US to accept the death of their armed forces so that we do no offend the sensibilities of the people who torture and mutilate our soldiers. true, two wrongs don't make a right, but by the same token sometimes it comes down to survival.

StuckInTheSixties:

By that token, you give ethical license to "the sensibilities of the people who torture and multilate our soldiers."

You can't have it both ways.

OCD_OCD: We weren't the first to start it. They bear some of the responsibility also don't you think?

davidk14: .

Sixties,

The enemy as we know them in our time are not bound by any moral interpretation of internationally accepted law or common decency. War is war.

Some might agree with, Do unto others as they would do unto you.

Some might agree if they shoot at you, you shoot back at them. They defile your dead, you defile theirs. They kill your civilians; you drop a nuke on theirs.

Some agree in treating war prisoners better than their own common pickpockets and thieves.

Some agree using laser guided bombs to kill and maim and accept the collateral damage, yet they will also agree with covering war prisoners with the protections of the US Constitution and that they should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

Sort of clouds up the concept, Do unto others as they would do unto you.


Me? The US has used a phrase…'Kill order. How can that be legal without a Declaration of War? We shouldn’t commit our military into combat without a Declaration of War unless of course,a pre-emptive strike will stop a terrorist attack but this action should have some type of legal oversight.

.

StuckInTheSixties:

It is a cloudy concept. It would be nice if everything was nice and neat and orderly.

It isn't.

You two are comfortable down there in what I characterize as the slimy gutter of torture.

I'm not.

OCD_OCD: I'm over here knowing that we can't fight people intent on killing us with word and ideas. Sounds good, but it will not happen.

davidk14: .

Slimy gutter of torture.

You are the guy that is interrogating the terrorist who planted a nuclear devise in NYC. You have 1 hour to find the bomb and disarm it. You have been given the authority in writing to do whatever you need to do to get this person to talk. So far, he has refused to voluntarily give you the location and the disarming code. The bomb will kill 5 million and contaminate 10's of millions of others.

Would you slip into the slimy gutter of torture to [try and] save those millions of lives?

[Edited]

.

.

OCD_OCD: sixties, I am not trying to be rude, but what would it take to make you decide that enough is enough. the death of your mother? Father? child? or would you sacrifice the lives of those you love in order to say that you never raised a violent hand to those who were trying to kill you?

StuckInTheSixties:

OCD_OCD says:
“I'm over here knowing that we can't fight people intent on killing us with word and ideas. Sounds good, but it will not happen.”

That misses the point. Of course those people you’re referring to, the likes of Al Qaida and the Taliban, won’t care about those “words and ideas.” But others will. And most importantly, we citizens of the USA should care.

davidk14 says:
"You are the guy that is interrogating the terrorist who planted a nuclear devise in NYC. You have 1 hour to find the bomb and disarm it. You have been given the authority in writing to do whatever you need to do to get this person to talk. So far, he has refused to voluntarily give you the location and the disarming code. The bomb will kill 5 million and contaminate 10's of millions of others. Would you slip into the slimy gutter of torture to [try and] save those millions of lives?"

That’s an awfully cheap, well-worn cliché question, but I’m willing to provide the obvious response.

Yes, I would. I’m not a mindless robot, nor a zealot. In fact, you could have omitted the “authority in writing,” and I’d still do it. In that cheezy imaginary Hollywood movie, you have a specific scenario where the moral compromise is relatively small compared to the practical gain, which is astronomically large and immediate. I’d compromise my ideals in that circumstance.

But we’re not in a cheezy imaginary Hollywood movie. What you two advocate is embracing torture as standard operating procedure. You’re willing to abandon ideals that have, for many years, presented the world, and ourselves, with a stark moral distinction between the USA, and the forces of tyranny in the world. Why would anyone be so willing to surrender that distinction when so many have sacrificed so much for so long to preserve those ideals?

OCD_OCD says:
sixties, I am not trying to be rude, but what would it take to make you decide that enough is enough. the death of your mother? Father? child?

No worries, that’s not a rude question. And my apologies for the length of my answer. It’s actually kind of a complicated issue.

Frankly, I don’t know. It’s possible that something that extreme could turn me into a violent monster, or a Buddhist, or anything else. Seems pointless to speculate.

But your question, unintentionally, points out that again, you’re trying to have it both ways.

Your question draws a sharp distinction between one group of people …

~ those victims that have lost loved ones to violence (heretofore referred to as “victims” for brevity)

… and another group of people

~ the rest of us.

Your question draws a contrast between those two groups (otherwise, there would be no point in asking me to leap in my imagination from being a non-victim to a victim).

Your question reasonably suggests that a victim is likely to be more inclined to make the ethical compromise of resorting to torture. It reasonably suggests that victims have more of an excuse for compromising their morals. That was the point of asking me that question. You wanted to know if I would be willing to compromise my ideals if I was a victim.

But your question also unambiguously implies that if we’re not victims, we have no excuse for compromising our morals.

On one hand, you imply that it’s reasonable for victims, by virtue of their victimhood, to make ethical compromises. Yet, you also find it reasonable for those that aren’t victims, such as you or me, to make the same moral compromises.

Either those victims are making ethical compromises which are unjustified for non-victims, or being a victim has no bearing on the ethics of torture.

You’re trying to say:

Empathize with the victims to understand why torture is acceptable … oh, but by the way, it doesn’t matter if you’re a victim or not, torture is acceptable anyway.

You can’t have it both ways.

OCD says:
“… or would you sacrifice the lives of those you love in order to say that you never raised a violent hand to those who were trying to kill you?”

Nowhere have I said, nor suggested, that I wouldn’t be willing to “raise a violent hand to those who were trying to kill [me or others].” I’m not a pacifist.

Unless I misunderstood, it appears that you’re making a gross oversimplification, that abhorrence to torture equates to pacifism, or conversely, that all non-pacifists endorse torture.

Neither is true.

davidk14: .

Sixties said:

Yes, I would. I’m not a mindless robot, nor a zealot.

David responds:

Same scenario...would you do it to save 1 life? If not, how many lives?

.

OCD_OCD: I understand part of what you are saying, Sixties, but I guess what I was trying to say is that everyone has a point that they would commit violence for their loved ones and that is acceptable, but when you take it from your immediate family and base it on the loved ones of other people in the U.S., does the same morality still apply? If you would do it for your loved ones, would the same thinking apply for the loved ones of others?

StuckInTheSixties:

david says:
"Same scenario ... 1 life? If not, how many lives?"

I don't know. It's an imaginary hypothetical scenario you're asking me to put myself in. But it seems to be equating one life with 5 million lives. Perhaps you're trying to make the point that the numbers aren't important. But at some point, some undefinable point, the numbers become important. Your comparison of 1 life to 5 million lives is extreme, to say the least. But since making an extreme comparison seems acceptable to you, let's make it as extreme as possible.

To save the lives of only those that are the most close to you, would you be willing to kill every other person on the globe?

You may say that I'm making an absurd comparison. It is absurd. But it's no more absurd than comparing 1 person to 5 million.

And your question sidesteps the center of my argument, which is that embracing torture, adopting it as an accepted part of our values, is abandoning a way of life that so many of our citizens have fought and died to protect. I'm not willing to abandon that.

OCD says:
"If you would do it for your loved ones, would the same thinking apply for the loved ones of others?"

No, I don't think so. As I tried to point out, when it's your loved ones, it shouldn't be surprising that emotion overruns your rationale. I see the point you're making, that all of those on "our side" are important, not just our loved ones. And I don't ignore that having values that deny the usage of torture comes at a price. I made that point earlier.

But you both seem to ignore that adopting torture as part of our values comes at a price too. That price is too high for me. I'm not willing to embrace that particular evil in order to fight evil. It saddens me that it's even considered.

davidk14: .

Sixties,

Thank you for your point of view. It is a noble stance to take and philosophically, I agree.

I watched a movie a while back and will be watching it again since it is exactly what we are talking about. It is called, “Unthinkable” with Samuel L. Jackson. It debates the exact scenario I described. If you can get your hands on it, please do. Both sides of the argument are covered in depth.

So, perhaps we should / could use a present day scenario that we are all aware of.

Do ‘we’ take out the Iranian nuclear laboratories before they produce a nuclear weapon? Are we willing to accept the possibility of heavy collateral damage in lives and treasury to effectively 'eliminate the possibility' that Iran would use the weapons? What if we don’t? Are we willing to accept Iran with a nuke?

.

.

Outbackjack: You obviously have a lot more patience with these two lunatics than I will ever have.Well done.

OCD_OCD: Testy, testy, Jack.

davidk14: .

Behave yourself Jack. And that's a new word you have labeled me with. And the word definitely is not the correct word to label OCD with.

Hey, you guys really need to see that movie "Unthinkable". If you have nexflix, I think they have it. I'm watching it right now on DVD and it is definitively what we have been talking about. You too Jack. Right up your alley.

See ya in awhile....

.

.

StuckInTheSixties:

david, is the plot accurately described here?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unthinkable

davidk14: .

Not really. The description from Wiki is very abbreviated. It doesn't give the conversations of right vs. wrong regarding torture. In the movie they're constantly arguing the legality of who can and can not authorize torture to 'save' lives.

.

StuckInTheSixties:

Sorry, got sidetracked and nearly forgot about this thread.

From what I've been able to learn about the film, I think I'll take a pass on it. Between the fact that it was "direct to video" and that most references to it seem to use the phrase "gratuitous violence," I think I can manage to live without the experience. If the moral arguments in that film for the acceptance and adoption of torture as a normal part of doing things is that profound, why don't you encapsulate those arguments here, and spare me from having to watch it?