ok forget gun control. do you believe the US government could turn tyranical.

[DutchJazzer]

First in my mind is the fact that normal human beings make up our armed forces. They come from all walks of life (less often from extreme wealth, especially in the enlisted ranks) and have all sorts of political views. You tell them to attack or subjugate their fellow Americans and the vast majority would flat out refuse. All members of the U.S. armed forces are sworn to protect and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

So, no. I don't need a gun to defend myself against a tyrant. I need the members of the U.S. military to follow their oath.

But all sorts of things are possible. For tyranny to even be an option there would first have to be an event or a campaign that caused a tremendous amount of fear and distrust and we'd need to know who the enemy was we were fighting. It can't just be the American people in general.

In the event of a civil war, a failed coup, or something like that maybe the military becomes fractured and some are on this side some are on that side. In that sort of situation a population as armed as the U.S. and just as importantly in my mind a population that knows how to effectively use their arms, makes a huge difference.

Even if the military all supported our tyrannical leader, again there has to be a specific enemy. Sure fighter jets, tanks, APCs and all that can squash a horde of armed civilians, but just as we see in other parts of the world, the government can't just decimate entire neighborhoods because a few of the bad guys are there. It negates much of the advantage of all that equipment and favors small arms battles.

what if i tell you in my lifetime in my home country there have been 2 coups.
and th army was not on our side. they SHOT police officers and detectives nobody did a thing

 

[Gameface]

what if i tell you in my lifetime in my home country there have been 2 coups.
and th army was not on our side. they SHOT police officers and detectives nobody did a thing

I'd say it's good to be an American.

Our armed forces are specifically banned from performing any domestic law enforcement type functions for just such reasons.

 

[DutchJazzer]

I'd say it's good to be an American.

Our armed forces are specifically banned from performing any domestic law enforcement type functions for just such reasons.

well in my country they are also banned from doing it. but when the coup started they did anyway.

 

[Gameface]

well in my country they are also banned from doing it. but when the coup started they did anyway.

Who was the enemy they fought against?

All I can say is that I know I would have refused any sort of order to attack U.S. civilians and I firmly believe the people I served with would have done the same.

Does the oath your country swears specifically mention their primary duty is to uphold the rights of the people and that they only have to follow legal orders that follow the rules of the constitution?

 

[DutchJazzer]

Who was the enemy they fought against?

All I can say is that I know I would have refused any sort of order to attack U.S. civilians and I firmly believe the people I served with would have done the same.

Does the oath your country swears specifically mention their primary duty is to uphold the rights of the people and that they only have to follow legal orders that follow the rules of the constitution?

the enmy was the democratically chosen politicians and everybody who opposed the tyrant.

 

[Gameface]

the enmy was the democratically chosen politicians and everybody who opposed the tyrant.

Along some sort of ethnic lines, socio-economic, race? All I'm saying is that for tyranny to happen in the U.S. some group would need to be vilified and there would need to be an event that crystallized the majorities fear and hatred of that group. A tyrant can't just come in and say **** the people, all bow to me! It just wouldn't work here.

But internment camps, Indian reservations, the patriot act, these things tell me that given the right circumstances the constitution can be completely ignored.

 

[[size/HUGE] boobs [/size]]

What part of the geneva convention were they in violation of?

Who cares? It's called casualty of wars it is not child play like NWO want you to think with there pretty little Geneva convention farce.

I do not recognize Geneva. I did not get vote. This is taxation without representation. This is tyranny you cannot make human rights exist under tyranny. It is stupid and should become shredded. Taxation is in American deaths because we are too weak to use necessary measurement to gain information. You think ISIS wont torture Americans? Why should we give them all advantage? It like stupid Obama rules of engagement. US soldier gas to stand down while suicide bomber approach. Here Mr. Terrorist come blow off my leg.

It is because NWO and there paid disinformation agents like OBrow dont care about soldiers life only power and control.

 

[Gameface]

One Brow is a paid disinformation agent!

Everything suddenly makes perfectly no sense at all.

 

[LogGrad98]

Along some sort of ethnic lines, socio-economic, race? All I'm saying is that for tyranny to happen in the U.S. some group would need to be vilified and there would need to be an event that crystallized the majorities fear and hatred of that group. A tyrant can't just come in and say **** the people, all bow to me! It just wouldn't work here.

But internment camps, Indian reservations, the patriot act, these things tell me that given the right circumstances the constitution can be completely ignored.

Well to be honest you can kind of see that now, although it is arguable how much different it is now compared to years and decades ago. But in my lifetime I have seen few all-out attacks as we see now from the left against the right. The left is doing all they can to villify the right on every aspect. Granted, the right are not doing themselves any favors, but we are consistently seeing things presented in the media and official channels in such a skewed way that it is hard to discern where the truth ends and propaganda begins. I have always had friends on different sides of the political spectrum, but only in the last 10 years have I seen so many of them get literally spitting mad and say such vitriolic things. One friend who has always been critical of the right has made comments to me along the lines of it is time to round up the repubs and kill them all summarily. And he isn't joking or being hyperbolic. And he isn't the only one I see with this kind of attitude or swinging this hard to the one side. I like to hope it is just a fringe thing, but I suppose that this type of thing may one day, 50 or 100 years from be, be pointed out at the catalyst that started a tyrannical oppression as one party was "executed" and the other took complete control. Or it could swing again in subsequent years and go the other route, but with the increasing political bent of the media I have hard time seeing it swinging back anytime soon.

 

[One Brow]

If you really think no one under extraordinary rendition was tortured other than under Bush then I have some ocean front property to sell you in the STG.

Since I've just stated that both Bush and Obama broke the Geneva convention, why would your hypothetical have any relevance to me?

Did other President's endorse torture? Maybe, but I haven't seen any evidence for that.

 

[LogGrad98]

Since I've just stated that both Bush and Obama broke the Geneva convention, why would your hypothetical have any relevance to me?

Did other President's endorse torture? Maybe, but I haven't seen any evidence for that.

Just going back to that wiki page:

According to Clinton administration official Richard Clarke:

“ 'extraordinary renditions', were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgment of the host government.... The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: "Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ***.'"[29] ”
Both the Reagan and Clinton cases involved apprehending known terrorists abroad, by covert means if necessary. The Bush administration expanded the policy after the 9/11 attacks.

In a New Yorker interview with CIA veteran Michael Scheuer, an author of the rendition program under the Clinton administration, writer Jane Mayer noted,

"In 1995, American agents proposed the rendition program to Egypt, making clear that it had the resources to track, capture, and transport terrorist suspects globally—including access to a small fleet of aircraft. Egypt embraced the idea... 'What was clever was that some of the senior people in Al Qaeda were Egyptian,' Scheuer said. 'It served American purposes to get these people arrested, and Egyptian purposes to get these people back, where they could be interrogated.' Technically, U.S. law requires the CIA to seek 'assurances' from foreign governments that rendered suspects won’t be tortured. Scheuer told me that this was done, but he was 'not sure' if any documents confirming the arrangement were signed."[30]

I did look at the wikileaks stuff at one point and seem to remember discussions revealed that Egypt was one of the chosen places specifically because they had no qualms using torture in their interrogations, but I could be wrong. I just think this has gone on a lot longer than anyone really knows, and we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg when it comes to covert operations that defy the Geneva convention.

And I apologize if I saw the dates wrong. I thought you pointed out specifically 2002 to 2008, which would have been a pretty narrow timeline to choose from considering the scope of the whole issue.

 

[One Brow]

Just going back to that wiki page:...

And I apologize if I saw the dates wrong. I thought you pointed out specifically 2002 to 2008, which would have been a pretty narrow timeline to choose from considering the scope of the whole issue.

Can we agree that turning someone over to a regime known to torture, and not being sure if there was a signed document that there would not be torture, is not the same violation as directly conducting torture?

You quoted me using 2002-2012 (it's on page 2), but memory is a tricky thing. Apology accepted.

 

[LogGrad98]

Can we agree that turning someone over to a regime known to torture, and not being sure if there was a signed document that there would not be torture, is not the same violation as directly conducting torture?

You quoted me using 2002-2012 (it's on page 2), but memory is a tricky thing. Apology accepted.

We can agree to the point that you can recognize that turning them over to another regime and saying "get me that information by whatever means necessary" when you know without a doubt EXACTLY what that means, and saying the same thing to your own people are virtually the same thing.

Or in other words, I highly doubt that Bush was the one holding the water bucket over the guys head cackling evilly while he ignored the pleas of the other interrogators "stop Mr. President, you might kill him!" I also seriously doubt that any such approval given would go much beyond the quote I wrote earlier "by whatever means necessary", and would definitely not include the word "torture". Every regime wants plausible deniability as much as possible, and that is what they are largely leaning on now.

 

[One Brow]

We can agree to the point that you can recognize that turning them over to another regime and saying "get me that information by whatever means necessary" when you know without a doubt EXACTLY what that means, and saying the same thing to your own people are virtually the same thing.

I agree, and if Clinton did that, he would be guilty. He may have done that, but your link was not strong evidence for it.

I also seriously doubt that any such approval given would go much beyond the quote I wrote earlier "by whatever means necessary", and would definitely not include the word "torture".

Yoo outlined specific procedures to follow that were claimed to not be torture and that US personnel could use. Some of them were torture.