I don't believe waterboarding is extreme. We do it out our own Navy pilots. Call it torture if you want, I don't care.. I'm not hung up on the name. I support using torture to save American lives. Should we be hooking up electrodes to the testicles of terrorists to get them to show us their gun stash? No. Should be waterboard them to find out more about a plot to destroy the brooklyn bridge? If the President decides the threat is real, and it will save American lives to do it, then YES..
I don't care if its 'legal' or not. I think it should be done if American lives can be saved. Again, I never said the President should be able to rape a woman, or rob a bank, or kill a kitten.. I think he should be able to use all possible resources at his disposal to prevent American's from being killed by our enemies. Just as I would expect him to push the Red Button if China decided to send some nukes at us. I would expect him to wipe them from the face of the earth.
Was dropping the bomb on Japan 'legal'? I don't know.. But I am glad we did it and it saved American lives. I wonder how many of us wouldn't even be alive if we didn't do it because our grandparents would have died. I'm sure many of the Japanese who survived the bomb would much preferred waterboarding to the consequences of the a-bomb. So to say we don't torture is not true.. we DO torture, and we kill, and we slaughter people when we need to as a country.
So you think the president should be able to break the law if he thinks it can save American lives. Think about what you're saying for a second and the implications of your idea. You're basically calling for the president to set aside laws as he sees fit. That's a dictatorship.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
As I said, a deep thinker.
I think I've discovered your true identity:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBI...sic/09/03/cnna.spears/
I really don't care. Is dropping an a-bomb on someone legal? Probably not, but our President did it and we are better off for it.
Is spying on Iran or North Korea legal? Do we have operatives in place to steal information from our enemies? Is that legal? Probably not but I sure hope we are doing it.
What the hell are you talking about? I am aware of no credible source that says that dropping the atomic bomb was illegal, and it certainly wasn't illegal under US law. Furthermore, conducting espionage against our enemies is most certainly NOT illegal. No big surprise here, but you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.
If you don't care if the president can break the law, then you are endorsing dictatorship. Period. If you can't see the catastrophic consequences of following through with the course you illustrate here, open a history book.
They have in the past, and will in the future. Obama will probably do it as well. I expect them to do it when its needed and getting legal approval is not feasible. I'm pretty sure having CIA agents in governments around the world is technically illegal.. or at the very least against some treaties we have signed.. I still hope we are doing it and I don't plan on putting Obama on trial for allowing it.
A lot of you guys think Chavez is a hero, so maybe I am just endorsing the creation of a supreme ruler like him? You guys seem to love him.
Atomic Playboy
Lifer
- Feb 6, 2007
- 16,432
- 1
- 81
Why the intense paranoia? Do you spy on your neighbors too, just to be sure? Why are you so convinced that the world is out to get you? And no, I don't mean America, I mean you; you've already established that you fear you or your family getting harmed. What makes you think anyone is coming after you?
By all means show me these treaties... I'll be waiting.
What you are advocating is for the President to be unaccountable to the legislature or the judiciary. That literally makes you an enemy of the Constitution, and I mean that with no exaggeration. You are one of the things that every member of the military and every president swears an oath to defend against. Luckily, you are part of the lunatic fringe so I'm not super worried about it.
Oh, and that was a particularly pathetic attempt at diverting to Hugo Chavez. Please go ahead and link posts where I've defended his style of government. If you can't maybe you should admit you just wrote something stupid.
I have routinely said that Shepard Smith and occasionally Judge Neopolitiano (or however you say his delicious icecream flavor name) are the only two people on fox who are remotely close to being "fair and balanced" and therefore the only two that I actually respect.
Shep is known for telling it as it is when the bullshit really starts flying around. In this case he was 100% correct.
I love how you talk about black and white like you do't do it yourself. This forum (in general) is very much a huge partisan circlejerk and war pit. Everything is black and white to everybody.
This whole thread you are trying to talk in maybe's and if's ... If it was my family, I'd torture. Maybe if I could stop the holocaust, I'd torture. It is amazing how willing you are to look at the maybe's and if's when it applies to something you feel strongly about... however you absolutely refuse to do the opposite for the other side of the coin.
What about all the maybe's and if's that cause people to turn into terrorist cells? Why don't you consider those?
If you are so willing to do evil things if it protects your family, do you think you would do terrorist acts to defend them? Where is the line in your supposed world of gray that only applies to you? What if your home was invade, your schools burned and bombed, your children murdered, your neighbors imprisoned for having a radio? What if??? Huh? Is evil okay only when it applies to you??
Morality huh? Touchy subject.... There is a wide variety of moralities that people aspouse to in this country and internationally. The question isnt if you are moral or not, the question is, do enough people agree on one morality.
The subject of interrogation methods isnt black and white as disussions like this prove. Im sure a majority of people agree about an extreme line like killing someone, or beheading them, but as you get more and more benign (relatively speaking) in nature, the more gray areas develop for people and the question gets harder and harder.
Of course if someone really want to adhere to a strict 'morality', then they would not advicate interragation at all. Of course, thats not possible either, so we will always be talking back and forth about whats too much and what morals we follow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...YumiQc&feature=related
Here is more of the interview. It is pretty interesting what they have to say. Both of them seem to not really like what is shown in the documents.
Apparently one memo actually mentions thumbscrews and the rack not actually being torture. I can seen how Shep is so fired up especially as the interview is constantly trying to change the story around to it being about only getting half the story. Both make excellent points to counter that argument.
You can say what you want and pretend this is a partisan issue, but deep down, if you truly are a patriotic American like you claim to be you have to know that there was wrong in what we are doing. I have often heard conservatives use the argument that if you allow something a little it is eventually going to turn into a lot. They use it with gun control, and to be honest, I truly agree. I think the hand gun bans in England were one of the steps that allowed the insane nanny state they currently have. Well this torture stuff is another example. Waterboarding in my opinion is torture. It is just barely on the line enough that some like pretend it isn't.
If we keep up allowing things like this and the domestic wiretapping and the secret prisons with sleep torture it is eventually going to lead to more horrible things. Any Anti-gun control person would tell you the same thing in their argument. What it could lead to?? I don't even want to know. To stop gangs, to stop drugs, to stop robbery... eventually to control speeding? Ridiculous, maybe a little... but once the ball starts rolling it is hard to stop. Hopefully we are able to end it before it goes too far and we have cameras on every corner and torturers in every police station.
EDIT: Even better clip with the full interview where Shep drops the bombs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...4a0LWs&feature=related
Here is more of the interview. It is pretty interesting what they have to say. Both of them seem to not really like what is shown in the documents.
Apparently one memo actually mentions thumbscrews and the rack not actually being torture. I can seen how Shep is so fired up especially as the interview is constantly trying to change the story around to it being about only getting half the story. Both make excellent points to counter that argument.
You can say what you want and pretend this is a partisan issue, but deep down, if you truly are a patriotic American like you claim to be you have to know that there was wrong in what we are doing. I have often heard conservatives use the argument that if you allow something a little it is eventually going to turn into a lot. They use it with gun control, and to be honest, I truly agree. I think the hand gun bans in England were one of the steps that allowed the insane nanny state they currently have. Well this torture stuff is another example. Waterboarding in my opinion is torture. It is just barely on the line enough that some like pretend it isn't.
If we keep up allowing things like this and the domestic wiretapping and the secret prisons with sleep torture it is eventually going to lead to more horrible things. Any Anti-gun control person would tell you the same thing in their argument. What it could lead to?? I don't even want to know. To stop gangs, to stop drugs, to stop robbery... eventually to control speeding? Ridiculous, maybe a little... but once the ball starts rolling it is hard to stop. Hopefully we are able to end it before it goes too far and we have cameras on every corner and torturers in every police station.
EDIT: Even better clip with the full interview where Shep drops the bombs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...4a0LWs&feature=related
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,500
- 6
- 81
Wait a second. You're not supporting TORTURE only in those cases where it will save 10 million lives. In fact, you're hardly limiting it at all. You support it when you have absolutely no basis for concluding that it will actually save lives in the long run. YOU advocate torture when you HOPE it MIGHT save lives in the short run, and to hell with the long run consequences.
What's truly obscene about your position is that even if a particular episode of torture actually does saves lives in the short run, you cannot possibly know that the negative consequences of the torture (for example, inspiring more extremists to even more outrageous acts of terror that kill more people than you saved) will not far, far outweigh the short term benefits.
ALL of us know - FOR SURE - many of the negative consequences of torture: It lowers us in the eyes of the world. It incites our enemies against us and helps them recruit more followers. It almost surely leads to more terrorist attacks. It undermines our advocacy of human rights (leading to increased loss of innocent life). It greatly increases the likelihood that our own citizens will be subjected to abusive practices at some point in the future. It surely leads to the unnecessary abuse of detainees we wrongly believe know than they actually do. And more immediately, it is inhumane and goes against what America stands for. It reduces our self-respect. It makes us ashamed of ourselves. Finally, regardless of how you try to twist it around and turn it inside out: It's illegal, a crime.
As against all that, what have YOU got? Imagined gains that may never have occurred and may never occur. A fantasy world where the good guys omnisciently kick butt, force the bad guys to reveal all their secrets, and then use those secrets to save lives. And the story ends there, with no repercussions.
Sounds like an episode of 24 to me.
We're Americans, we don't torture!
We're Americans, we don't allow foreigners to destroy our cities!
Can we truly have it both ways? Fuck if I know that answer.
We're Americans, we have the fundamental right to have differing opinions!
And it's quite funny to see one sentence here "Fox News does nothing but regurgitate Republican talking points": while the next sentence is "But they do have _this_ guy who is non-partisan and speaks his mind": next sentence "And this other guy who is also non-partisan and speaks his mind": next sentence "but all-in-all Fox News is still nothing but an extreme right-wing ultra-conservative station giving blowjobs to Republicans every hour on the hour"
We're Americans, we don't allow foreigners to destroy our cities!
Can we truly have it both ways? Fuck if I know that answer.
We're Americans, we have the fundamental right to have differing opinions!
And it's quite funny to see one sentence here "Fox News does nothing but regurgitate Republican talking points": while the next sentence is "But they do have _this_ guy who is non-partisan and speaks his mind": next sentence "And this other guy who is also non-partisan and speaks his mind": next sentence "but all-in-all Fox News is still nothing but an extreme right-wing ultra-conservative station giving blowjobs to Republicans every hour on the hour"
Watch the interview. The interviewer tries to do the standard conservative/rush limbaugh talking points and both the Judge and Shep won't let him do it. As I already posted they are the only two people respectworthy on that entire station.
I agree that we must enforce rules and not allow these things to get out of control. But, your going to find it hard to convince everyone on the same level to stop at. You mentioned sleep torture, are you talking about sleep deprivation? Thats something that would be highly debated as an improper tactic. See its these fine details that have to be hashed out and taken on a case by case basis. Plus, you mention torture in police stations, but dont we have two different sets of rules for criminals from our country and those that are captured by the military? Im not sure, but I doubt they are allowed to question criminals from this country nearly as harshly as they do those captured by the military from other countries.
Its not a question of patriotism, its a question of where individuals feel the country should put its foot down. Patriotism is thrown around alot, but it can be twisted depending on how you personally feel about the country.
But there is one thing that we have already lost out on and thats cameras on every corner. Thats already covered the UK and is already present in an ever groing number of states here.
]
No, the topic is that citizens have a moral responsibility for their positions - they cannot simply say they can support any position they want, and morality is only for leaders.
My post was not discussing which moral view is right, but rather the larger issue about the moral obligation citizens have, whichever particular views they have.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter