Shepard Smith from Fox just earned my respect

[chucky2]

Fear No Evil:

I completely and totally understand your arguments - and agree with them...I've made them before here on P&N myself.

What you'll find here though is people who are philosophically and morally against torture, regardless of those consequences.

What I've come to understand after reading countless posts of theirs, is that they can post this way because they lack what those who are sworn to protect US are charged with:

Accountability.

The people who whine here simply lack any accountability for the policies they promote. They can take any (and seemingly all) stances against Wot efforts because they bear no blame for the next 9/11, Cole, etc. It matters not to them that our torture (and, it is torture) is on the lighter side of torture: Certainly not cutting off heads, arms, etc. It matters not to them that it's done to a select few - not every p1ssant we capture. It matters not to them that the enemy doesn't F'ing care if we torture or not, they're either so brainwashed anyways that they'll be told we do (regardless if it's true), or, they'll be savvy enough to know we don't, or at minimum know it's highly doubtful they'll have more than a hand laid on them (which is why these people were tortured in the first place), and hence laugh at the absurdity of their interrogators.

Again, it doesn't matter to them because they're not accountable. Neither are all the up in arms whiners in EU...the same ones who've by their total inaction, have directly let hundreds of thousands be tortured and slaughtered in Sudan. I know, I know...24 helicopters for the EU to cough up was a ton of helicopters...just to many...

Anyways, just wanted to let you know that someone here does get what you're saying....it's hard arguing with people who fundamentally just don't (or won't) get it....

Chuck

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: trooper11

Originally posted by: SirStev0

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.

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.

That is my very point. A great many conservatives have dropped the farce that waterboarding isn't torture and their new argument is that torture is sometimes necessary. That is step one. If we decide that that is true, the question becomes when is torture necessary. How long before it is necessary to stop *insert crime here*? How long before we start torturing our own?

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: chucky2
Fear No Evil:

I completely and totally understand your arguments - and agree with them...I've made them before here on P&N myself.

What you'll find here though is people who are philosophically and morally against torture, regardless of those consequences.

What I've come to understand after reading countless posts of theirs, is that they can post this way because they lack what those who are sworn to protect US are charged with:

Accountability.

The people who whine here simply lack any accountability for the policies they promote. They can take any (and seemingly all) stances against Wot efforts because they bear no blame for the next 9/11, Cole, etc. It matters not to them that our torture (and, it is torture) is on the lighter side of torture: Certainly not cutting off heads, arms, etc. It matters not to them that it's done to a select few - not every p1ssant we capture. It matters not to them that the enemy doesn't F'ing care if we torture or not, they're either so brainwashed anyways that they'll be told we do (regardless if it's true), or, they'll be savvy enough to know we don't, or at minimum know it's highly doubtful they'll have more than a hand laid on them (which is why these people were tortured in the first place), and hence laugh at the absurdity of their interrogators.

Again, it doesn't matter to them because they're not accountable. Neither are all the up in arms whiners in EU...the same ones who've by their total inaction, have directly let hundreds of thousands be tortured and slaughtered in Sudan. I know, I know...24 helicopters for the EU to cough up was a ton of helicopters...just to many...

Anyways, just wanted to let you know that someone here does get what you're saying....it's hard arguing with people who fundamentally just don't (or won't) get it....

Chuck

Accountability? What? Do you even know what you are talking about?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Yeah, I wonder if his family was being held hostage if he would change his mind. Taking the moral high ground is easy when your life isn't on the line. I doubt he would say 'This is America - We don't torture' if that meant his wife and children would likely be killed.

You can't provide ONE (if you can count that high) instance where torture protected or saved ANY American lives. The only ones making such claims are the Bushwhacko criminals, themselves, and they haven't produced any verifiable evidence to support their claims, either.

What will you do when you find that the person you torture is innocent? :shocked:

Don't think it could happen? Would you be suprised that it already has?

Of the more than 770 individuals known to have been incarcerated for some period at Guantánamo, the U.S. government has charged only 23 with war crimes as of October 2008.16 These figures argue in favor of a full investigation to determine how and why the U.S. has held so many men for so long without adequate legal safeguards. Our qualitative data and secondary sources indicate that many detainees held in U.S. custody in Kandahar and Bagram, Afghanistan repeatedly experienced physical abuse, deprivations, humiliation, and degradation. The conditions in which detainees were held, as well as their treatment at these facilities, contravened international guidelines for the humane treatment of detainees, violated fundamental cultural and religious taboos against public nudity, interfered with religious practice, and created an environment that maximized physical and psychological discomfort and uncertainty. Respondents held at Bagram in particular reported abuses that included beatings, stress positions, prolonged hanging by the arms, sleep deprivation, intimidation, and being terrorized with dogs.

Without our ethics, morals, conscience and rule of law, there is no United States of America. You are an embarrassment to our nation and to humanity.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Yeah, I wonder if his family was being held hostage if he would change his mind. Taking the moral high ground is easy when your life isn't on the line. I doubt he would say 'This is America - We don't torture' if that meant his wife and children would likely be killed.

You can't provide ONE (if you can count that high) instance where torture protected or saved ANY American lives. The only ones making such claims are the Bushwhacko criminals, themselves, and they haven't produced any verifiable evidence to support their claims, either.

What will you do when you find that the person you torture is innocent? :shocked:

Don't think it could happen? Would you be suprised that it already has?

Of the more than 770 individuals known to have been incarcerated for some period at Guantánamo, the U.S. government has charged only 23 with war crimes as of October 2008.16 These figures argue in favor of a full investigation to determine how and why the U.S. has held so many men for so long without adequate legal safeguards. Our qualitative data and secondary sources indicate that many detainees held in U.S. custody in Kandahar and Bagram, Afghanistan repeatedly experienced physical abuse, deprivations, humiliation, and degradation. The conditions in which detainees were held, as well as their treatment at these facilities, contravened international guidelines for the humane treatment of detainees, violated fundamental cultural and religious taboos against public nudity, interfered with religious practice, and created an environment that maximized physical and psychological discomfort and uncertainty. Respondents held at Bagram in particular reported abuses that included beatings, stress positions, prolonged hanging by the arms, sleep deprivation, intimidation, and being terrorized with dogs.

Without our ethics, morals, conscience and rule of law, there is no United States of America. You are an embarrassment to our nation and to humanity. [/quote]

Originally posted by: chucky2
Fear No Evil:

I completely and totally understand your arguments - and agree with them...I've made them before here on P&N myself.

What you'll find here though is people who are philosophically and morally against torture, regardless of those consequences.

Translation: We have real human beings here, as well as ethical dwarves and moral midgets who would sacrafice the root principles of the nation they claim they want to protect through criminality and inhumanity. :thumbsdown:

What I've come to understand after reading countless posts of theirs, is that they can post this way because they lack what those who are sworn to protect US are charged with:

Accountability

You mean like upholding their oaths of office or military command or law enforcement? We can start with the oath sworn by the Commander In Chief of our military and the man for whom the highest ranking civilian law enforcement officer, the Attorney General of the United States of America reports:

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.

Torture is a violation of U.S. and international law and the Geneva Conventions, to which the United States of America is a signatory, making them an integral part of U.S. law.

How does committing, authorizing or ordering torture, thus violating any number of laws, in any way "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?"

 

[marincounty]

If he really wanted to earn my respect, he would resign from Fox News and hold a press conference saying why.

And Judge Napolitano only repeats right wing talking points when I've seen him, (watches
Fox News occasionally for the comic value).

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: chucky2
Fear No Evil:

I completely and totally understand your arguments - and agree with them...I've made them before here on P&N myself.

What you'll find here though is people who are philosophically and morally against torture, regardless of those consequences.

What I've come to understand after reading countless posts of theirs, is that they can post this way because they lack what those who are sworn to protect US are charged with:

Accountability.

The people who whine here simply lack any accountability for the policies they promote. They can take any (and seemingly all) stances against Wot efforts because they bear no blame for the next 9/11, Cole, etc. It matters not to them that our torture (and, it is torture) is on the lighter side of torture: Certainly not cutting off heads, arms, etc. It matters not to them that it's done to a select few - not every p1ssant we capture. It matters not to them that the enemy doesn't F'ing care if we torture or not, they're either so brainwashed anyways that they'll be told we do (regardless if it's true), or, they'll be savvy enough to know we don't, or at minimum know it's highly doubtful they'll have more than a hand laid on them (which is why these people were tortured in the first place), and hence laugh at the absurdity of their interrogators.

Again, it doesn't matter to them because they're not accountable. Neither are all the up in arms whiners in EU...the same ones who've by their total inaction, have directly let hundreds of thousands be tortured and slaughtered in Sudan. I know, I know...24 helicopters for the EU to cough up was a ton of helicopters...just to many...

Anyways, just wanted to let you know that someone here does get what you're saying....it's hard arguing with people who fundamentally just don't (or won't) get it....

Chuck

I love posts like this - you guys just "get it" and the rest of the world doesn't. In case you didn't notice, the intelligence community and armed forces are not even close to being in consensus on this issue - you know, the people who are "accountable" for our safety. And by the way, our president, who would be considered the most "accountable" person in the country for our safety is against torture. Not because he doesn't "get it" - but because he like the rest of us doesn't want to see his country accept the methods of its enemies.

 

[dbk]

Originally posted by: SirStev0

Originally posted by: chucky2
Fear No Evil:

I completely and totally understand your arguments - and agree with them...I've made them before here on P&N myself.

What you'll find here though is people who are philosophically and morally against torture, regardless of those consequences.

What I've come to understand after reading countless posts of theirs, is that they can post this way because they lack what those who are sworn to protect US are charged with:

Accountability.

The people who whine here simply lack any accountability for the policies they promote. They can take any (and seemingly all) stances against Wot efforts because they bear no blame for the next 9/11, Cole, etc. It matters not to them that our torture (and, it is torture) is on the lighter side of torture: Certainly not cutting off heads, arms, etc. It matters not to them that it's done to a select few - not every p1ssant we capture. It matters not to them that the enemy doesn't F'ing care if we torture or not, they're either so brainwashed anyways that they'll be told we do (regardless if it's true), or, they'll be savvy enough to know we don't, or at minimum know it's highly doubtful they'll have more than a hand laid on them (which is why these people were tortured in the first place), and hence laugh at the absurdity of their interrogators.

Again, it doesn't matter to them because they're not accountable. Neither are all the up in arms whiners in EU...the same ones who've by their total inaction, have directly let hundreds of thousands be tortured and slaughtered in Sudan. I know, I know...24 helicopters for the EU to cough up was a ton of helicopters...just to many...

Anyways, just wanted to let you know that someone here does get what you're saying....it's hard arguing with people who fundamentally just don't (or won't) get it....

Chuck

Accountability? What? Do you even know what you are talking about?

Yes, who will stand accountable for these crimes? WHO?

 

[Pocatello]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Yeah, I wonder if his family was being held hostage if he would change his mind. Taking the moral high ground is easy when your life isn't on the line. I doubt he would say 'This is America - We don't torture' if that meant his wife and children would likely be killed.

You can't provide ONE (if you can count that high) instance where torture protected or saved ANY American lives. The only ones making such claims are the Bushwhacko criminals, themselves, and they haven't produced any verifiable evidence to support their claims, either.

What will you do when you find that the person you torture is innocent? :shocked:

Don't think it could happen? Would you be suprised that it already has?

Of the more than 770 individuals known to have been incarcerated for some period at Guantánamo, the U.S. government has charged only 23 with war crimes as of October 2008.16 These figures argue in favor of a full investigation to determine how and why the U.S. has held so many men for so long without adequate legal safeguards. Our qualitative data and secondary sources indicate that many detainees held in U.S. custody in Kandahar and Bagram, Afghanistan repeatedly experienced physical abuse, deprivations, humiliation, and degradation. The conditions in which detainees were held, as well as their treatment at these facilities, contravened international guidelines for the humane treatment of detainees, violated fundamental cultural and religious taboos against public nudity, interfered with religious practice, and created an environment that maximized physical and psychological discomfort and uncertainty. Respondents held at Bagram in particular reported abuses that included beatings, stress positions, prolonged hanging by the arms, sleep deprivation, intimidation, and being terrorized with dogs.

Without our ethics, morals, conscience and rule of law, there is no United States of America. You are an embarrassment to our nation and to humanity.

In time of war, the U.S has never been afraid to do what it needs to do to achieve victory, by any means necessary. The U.S didn't win its independence by fighting nice. The U.S didn't take lands from the American Indians by talking to them. We have done a lot of nasty things over the years. We had firebombed cities which had little military values; we had set up concentration camps for our loyal citizens; we had dropped a couple of atomic bombs on civilians along the way. War is nasty and hellish. I find it amusing when people argue that if we "tortured" somebody, then it's OK for other countries to do the same to our own citizens. We have nuked and decimated cities, does it mean it's OK for other countries to do the same to us? We are where we are because we are the biggest bully on the block, not because of our moral high ground. If you mess with us, we occupy and decimate your country.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

From the context of the video, Gallagher was taking things much too casually. I don't know what Shepard's view is on the extremes, but I would have acted precisely the same. It's one thing to use apocalyptic hypotheticals, but when dealing with the attitude of "Well, it's just another interrogation technique" deserves the rant it got.

Given a hypothetical where one of my children was buried alive and I had access to the guy who did it and only hours to find them, I would use means better not mentioned. Let's say that nothing would be off limits to save one that I loved. I'm no saint. Nevertheless, we aren't talking those scenarios, but what has passed in the real world.

Let's say you gave up torture in that hypothetical scenario. The exchange is that you give up the right to something you will almost certainly never face, in exchange for a strong opposition to torture that prevents the rationalized use of torture in the real world against people for much lesser reasons. That's really the only relevance of that hypothetical - a debating technique used to get the foot in the door and establish enough support for torture to get used in the real world in lesser situations.

There's a slippery slope to your argument. It quickly becomes 'well, if we'd save your child, why not another American life - why not an American soldier? If we'd do it with 100% chance it will save a life, why not 90% chance? 50%? 5%? 1%?' Pretty soon, you can easily justify torture on the basis of 'just in case'; it becomes just another means of war. War loses its 'moral boundaries', few as they are.

And if you are going to remove war's few moral boundaries, why not the one saying that to save American lives, it's ok for us to use the threat of nukes in every conflict? To say that 'saving one American' jusitifies our telling any enemy that weill nuke their nation, their people, if they don't surrender - and then do so if they refuse? It is about 'saving an American life' right? I'm not saying you are advocating that, but I am saying that logic is appealing to some people.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Stand up for what's right.

No one is ever elevated by embracing evil, it merely justifies that which we say we are against.

Good man.

Yeah, I wonder if his family was being held hostage if he would change his mind. Taking the moral high ground is easy when your life isn't on the line. I doubt he would say 'This is America - We don't torture' if that meant his wife and children would likely be killed.

You're weak-minded or weak-willed if you'd give in. That's the bottom line. Even if it meant the death of your family, you're weak-willed if you'd give into torture. It wouldn't make you any better than a terrorist really, since that's exactly what they'd do. And there's nothing wrong with admitting that you're weak-willed and of little conviction, that's just a conclusion some people have to come to on their own. Thankfully, the greatest men in American history were of stronger conviction.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Stand up for what's right.

No one is ever elevated by embracing evil, it merely justifies that which we say we are against.

Good man.

Yeah, I wonder if his family was being held hostage if he would change his mind. Taking the moral high ground is easy when your life isn't on the line. I doubt he would say 'This is America - We don't torture' if that meant his wife and children would likely be killed.

You're weak-minded or weak-willed if you'd give in. That's the bottom line. Even if it meant the death of your family, you're weak-willed if you'd give into torture. It wouldn't make you any better than a terrorist really, since that's exactly what they'd do. And there's nothing wrong with admitting that you're weak-willed and of little conviction, that's just a conclusion some people have to come to on their own. Thankfully, the greatest men in American history were of stronger conviction.

if given a choice between being weak willed and getting back a family member such as an innocent child....call me weak willed....do whatever it takes to get that child back.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Stand up for what's right.

No one is ever elevated by embracing evil, it merely justifies that which we say we are against.

Good man.

Yeah, I wonder if his family was being held hostage if he would change his mind. Taking the moral high ground is easy when your life isn't on the line. I doubt he would say 'This is America - We don't torture' if that meant his wife and children would likely be killed.

You're weak-minded or weak-willed if you'd give in. That's the bottom line. Even if it meant the death of your family, you're weak-willed if you'd give into torture. It wouldn't make you any better than a terrorist really, since that's exactly what they'd do. And there's nothing wrong with admitting that you're weak-willed and of little conviction, that's just a conclusion some people have to come to on their own. Thankfully, the greatest men in American history were of stronger conviction.

if given a choice between being weak willed and getting back a family member such as an innocent child....call me weak willed....do whatever it takes to get that child back.

Right and it potentially never ends; torture one person or 10? What if you just have to kill 3 people to get back your son? Easy to say you'd do it because it's your son. A lot harder to do it in reality, and even harder (really, impossible) to justify.

In the end, strong-willed people won't kill/maim/torture no matter who is involved. Luckily those people tend to be the most determined and creative and eventually find solutions to their problems.

 

[sandorski]

Torture is always wrong. It doesn't matter if we are discussing Al Queda, Saddam Hussein, or Hitler, torture is wrong.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: chucky2
Fear No Evil:

I completely and totally understand your arguments - and agree with them...I've made them before here on P&N myself.

What you'll find here though is people who are philosophically and morally against torture, regardless of those consequences.

Translation: We have real human beings here, as well as ethical dwarves and moral midgets who would sacrafice the root principles of the nation they claim they want to protect through criminality and inhumanity. :thumbsdown:

Translation: We have real human beings here who live in a fantasy land, and these same real human being's are not accountable for protecting anything. No one is saying here that we should waterboard torture some p1ssant foot soldier where we know he's not going to have the quantity, quality, and/or significant intel info that would be necessary to precipitate the more harsh forms of interrogation. I'm sorry you cannot, or will not, realize that sometimes bad things have to happen to bad people for the good people to be protected. I know, I know...it's scary for you, just try to relax and realize others are willing to go to those leangths to protect you so you can sit here and whine on an internet forum about their efforts. So tough on you, I know....

Originally posted by: chucky2

What I've come to understand after reading countless posts of theirs, is that they can post this way because they lack what those who are sworn to protect US are charged with:

Accountability

You mean like upholding their oaths of office or military command or law enforcement? We can start with the oath sworn by the Commander In Chief of our military and the man for whom the highest ranking civilian law enforcement officer, the Attorney General of the United States of America reports:

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.

Torture is a violation of U.S. and international law and the Geneva Conventions, to which the United States of America is a signatory, making them an integral part of U.S. law.

How does committing, authorizing or ordering torture, thus violating any number of laws, in any way "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?"

The oath quote was a nice touch, truly. When the POTUS, or any other member of the Gov, takes that oath however, what they are essentially charged with is protecting the people of the United States...somewhere in there is a key phrase...lets see, what was that....oh, I know! "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

When the POTUS takes that oath Harvey, he/she isn't taking it just to uphold the Constitution, they are taking it to protect and defend all American's, Period. You notice that it mentions something about...obligation...having no mental reservations....not evading their duty...and willfully and faithfully acting on those duties.

WTF do you really think that all means in this modern day and age?????

Does it mean that the POTUS, having watched 3000 of his civilians go up in smoke in an hour, should get reports from his intelligence services that high value detainees, who most likely have valuable intelligence that can help thrawt another massive type attack, but aren't cooperating with their interragotors, should just go (after thinking about the above oath, and the ramifactions of it): Well, that's cool...no need to press them, we'll just point another spy satellite at the ME and I'm sure we'll catch anything else coming at us. Please make sure the Red Cross gets frequent visits (so he'll be far less isolated and can play the Red Cross against/with the media), unmonitored visits from his lawyers (yes, he should have lawyers, so he can make and receive communications from the outside, because that's a great thing!), etc?????

See Harvey, it's no effort for you and your ilk to scream for less harsh interrogation techniques, but it's only no effort because you lack any accountability for the results that brings. The POTUS, senior military Leadership, and the various intelligence services, are accountable for our safety. Which is why there will be zero of them who would not privately (that's: Not publically) endorse some form of controlled torture.

Again, I know it's all hard to digest that the world isn't rosy, and that there has never been the Utopia you wish to have, however, in the Real World, bad things are sometimes necessary. It's sad, but that's the way it is....

Chuck

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Stand up for what's right.

No one is ever elevated by embracing evil, it merely justifies that which we say we are against.

Good man.

Yeah, I wonder if his family was being held hostage if he would change his mind. Taking the moral high ground is easy when your life isn't on the line. I doubt he would say 'This is America - We don't torture' if that meant his wife and children would likely be killed.

But whatever, This is America and we are entitled to differing opinions.. and one of those is that torture is acceptable in certain cases.. I am one that falls under that belief that the President can and should use torture when American lives are at risk and if he believes it will succeed in saving them.

I'm sure I will be labeled for that.. but I don't care.. its my belief. I'd rather be alive and tainted than dead holding the moral high ground.

Your entitled to that opionion... I personally believe that you are a coward and "Fear evil" way too much.

The second we torture the "bad guys" even if its to gain valuable info - we ourselves just became the "bad guys".

I disagree.. Maybe you can honestly say you would prefer to be dead than to have the terrorists holding you and your family tortured.. I would not.. I would prefer they be tortured and my life saved. Maybe that makes me a coward.. I guess I can LIVE with that.

The problem is that you are assuming torture would get you better information than other interrogation methods. The truth is that is often not the case. Sure, it *might* be useful 1 time out of a 100, but often even in that one case there are other things you can do to get the information that are not as morally detestable.

If someone plants a nuke in NYC, chances are they weren't planning on living for very long anyway. What makes you convinced that torture would even be an issue for them? These guys signed up to die for Allah. They are basically insane.

There are two more problems with torture. The first is that it weakens our relationships with our allies. As an American, I enjoy poking fun at the French and Germans, and most of Europe. However, at the end of the day, those people are our allies and have been incredibly supportive of us. Our position on torture has pushed many Europeans away. This is a problem because we rely on these countries to help us fight the war on terror, whether it's with actual boots on the ground, logistical support, of them simply allowing us to use their airspace. This same thing applies to our allies in the Middle East, like Israel and Kuwait.

The second problem is that it emboldens our enemies. American's torturing Muslims is used as a recruiting poster for how we are the "Great Satan." Every time we engage in torture it enrages many Arabs, some of whom decide to fight against us.

Simply put, aside from my moral objection, I believe the short-term gains we *may* receive from torture far out way by the long term loss we *definitely* receive.

 

[Carmen813]

As for the argument that basically goes "you would think differently if your family was being held hostage," I have a response to that. You are correct, if my wife was in danger I would probably not give a rats ass until I had her back safely. However, that is why we do not give family members the power to be judge, jury, and executioner. That is why the father of a murdered and raped daughter does not get to handle the murderer's trial, even if he is obviously guilty. It is what sets us as a civilized society above others. We have a code of laws, they should be respected, not manipulated to justify any action, which is exactly what the justice department did when it allowed torture.

It's an extremely steep slope. You start manipulating the law of the land to allow one thing, and very quickly you will end up using it to do others.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Mani

I love posts like this - you guys just "get it" and the rest of the world doesn't. In case you didn't notice, the intelligence community and armed forces are not even close to being in consensus on this issue - you know, the people who are "accountable" for our safety. And by the way, our president, who would be considered the most "accountable" person in the country for our safety is against torture. Not because he doesn't "get it" - but because he like the rest of us doesn't want to see his country accept the methods of its enemies.

Well, you don't get that the POTUS will come to have to make hard choices that are sometimes going to result in bad people having bad things done to them...you'd rather him/her not have those things done, at the cost of US reaping that loss of intel. You further don't get that the POTUS will make the choice knowing it's perhaps illegal (or contrary to treaties we're signatory to), however because the POTUS (among others) bears the responsibility to protect US, that the POTUS will make that choice to extract that intel when the time comes.

I'm not saying I'm happy we will have to sometimes do these bad things - on the contrary, it's F'ing sh1tty. However I'm not so deluded to believe that in some cases, controlled torture is what is going to be needed, in private (so as to not have photos/video leaked to be used as propoganda against us), to either extract verifiable information or break the will of the subject.

You want to take it off the table completely, without reservation, without any thought to the consequences, simply because it's "icky" to you. Sorry I won't allow myself to be painted into that corner, but if you like being there, it's cool, that's your opinion....

Chuck

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Stand up for what's right.

No one is ever elevated by embracing evil, it merely justifies that which we say we are against.

Good man.

Yeah, I wonder if his family was being held hostage if he would change his mind. Taking the moral high ground is easy when your life isn't on the line. I doubt he would say 'This is America - We don't torture' if that meant his wife and children would likely be killed.

But whatever, This is America and we are entitled to differing opinions.. and one of those is that torture is acceptable in certain cases.. I am one that falls under that belief that the President can and should use torture when American lives are at risk and if he believes it will succeed in saving them.

I'm sure I will be labeled for that.. but I don't care.. its my belief. I'd rather be alive and tainted than dead holding the moral high ground.

Change your name.. cause you have fear traits. Nothing wrong with that, it's just a fact of who you are.

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Mani

I love posts like this - you guys just "get it" and the rest of the world doesn't. In case you didn't notice, the intelligence community and armed forces are not even close to being in consensus on this issue - you know, the people who are "accountable" for our safety. And by the way, our president, who would be considered the most "accountable" person in the country for our safety is against torture. Not because he doesn't "get it" - but because he like the rest of us doesn't want to see his country accept the methods of its enemies.

Well, you don't get that the POTUS will come to have to make hard choices that are sometimes going to result in bad people having bad things done to them...you'd rather him/her not have those things done, at the cost of US reaping that loss of intel. You further don't get that the POTUS will make the choice knowing it's perhaps illegal (or contrary to treaties we're signatory to), however because the POTUS (among others) bears the responsibility to protect US, that the POTUS will make that choice to extract that intel when the time comes.

I'm not saying I'm happy we will have to sometimes do these bad things - on the contrary, it's F'ing sh1tty. However I'm not so deluded to believe that in some cases, controlled torture is what is going to be needed, in private (so as to not have photos/video leaked to be used as propoganda against us), to either extract verifiable information or break the will of the subject.

You want to take it off the table completely, without reservation, without any thought to the consequences, simply because it's "icky" to you. Sorry I won't allow myself to be painted into that corner, but if you like being there, it's cool, that's your opinion....

Chuck

The President's job isn't to protect us. It's to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. He also must make sure that "laws are faithfully executed."

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Torture is always wrong. It doesn't matter if we are discussing Al Queda, Saddam Hussein, or Hitler, torture is wrong.

It may be wrong.. but sometimes it needs to be done.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Mani

I love posts like this - you guys just "get it" and the rest of the world doesn't. In case you didn't notice, the intelligence community and armed forces are not even close to being in consensus on this issue - you know, the people who are "accountable" for our safety. And by the way, our president, who would be considered the most "accountable" person in the country for our safety is against torture. Not because he doesn't "get it" - but because he like the rest of us doesn't want to see his country accept the methods of its enemies.

Well, you don't get that the POTUS will come to have to make hard choices that are sometimes going to result in bad people having bad things done to them...you'd rather him/her not have those things done, at the cost of US reaping that loss of intel. You further don't get that the POTUS will make the choice knowing it's perhaps illegal (or contrary to treaties we're signatory to), however because the POTUS (among others) bears the responsibility to protect US, that the POTUS will make that choice to extract that intel when the time comes.

I'm not saying I'm happy we will have to sometimes do these bad things - on the contrary, it's F'ing sh1tty. However I'm not so deluded to believe that in some cases, controlled torture is what is going to be needed, in private (so as to not have photos/video leaked to be used as propoganda against us), to either extract verifiable information or break the will of the subject.

You want to take it off the table completely, without reservation, without any thought to the consequences, simply because it's "icky" to you. Sorry I won't allow myself to be painted into that corner, but if you like being there, it's cool, that's your opinion....

Chuck

The President's job isn't to protect us. It's to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. He also must make sure that "laws are faithfully executed."

It absolutely is the job of the President to protect the American people. Thus the reason he was made Commander in Chief. Why would we give him control of the military if his job was not to protect us? If that isn't his job, who's is it? Who is responsible for making the decision to repell a Chinese bomber fleet coming to bomb us? Sarah Palin's? :roll:

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Stand up for what's right.

No one is ever elevated by embracing evil, it merely justifies that which we say we are against.

Good man.

Yeah, I wonder if his family was being held hostage if he would change his mind. Taking the moral high ground is easy when your life isn't on the line. I doubt he would say 'This is America - We don't torture' if that meant his wife and children would likely be killed.

But whatever, This is America and we are entitled to differing opinions.. and one of those is that torture is acceptable in certain cases.. I am one that falls under that belief that the President can and should use torture when American lives are at risk and if he believes it will succeed in saving them.

I'm sure I will be labeled for that.. but I don't care.. its my belief. I'd rather be alive and tainted than dead holding the moral high ground.

Change your name.. cause you have fear traits. Nothing wrong with that, it's just a fact of who you are.

I love people who have an issue with people's names on the internet. Just like Lemon Law who has some sort of hard-on for Prof John.. This is the internet. I'm sure you don't actually 'slam' anyone.. or are in jail, whatever your name means.. perhaps you should change your name? LOL. Its the interweb..

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

It absolutely is the job of the President to protect the American people. Thus the reason he was made Commander in Chief. Why would we give him control of the military if his job was not to protect us? If that isn't his job, who's is it? Who is responsible for making the decision to repell a Chinese bomber fleet coming to bomb us? Sarah Palin's? :roll:

Wrong. There's a very specific reason why the oath of office for the President is to defend the Constitution, and not the people. Furthermore, nowhere in his powers or responsibilities is the protection of the people listed. In reality of course the protection of the people and the defense of the Constitution along with his rights and responsibilities coincide, but not always. His first duty is to the Constitution and to the faithful execution of the law.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Stand up for what's right.

No one is ever elevated by embracing evil, it merely justifies that which we say we are against.

Good man.

Yeah, I wonder if his family was being held hostage if he would change his mind. Taking the moral high ground is easy when your life isn't on the line. I doubt he would say 'This is America - We don't torture' if that meant his wife and children would likely be killed.

But whatever, This is America and we are entitled to differing opinions.. and one of those is that torture is acceptable in certain cases.. I am one that falls under that belief that the President can and should use torture when American lives are at risk and if he believes it will succeed in saving them.

I'm sure I will be labeled for that.. but I don't care.. its my belief. I'd rather be alive and tainted than dead holding the moral high ground.

Quit hiding behind the diversion of American lives being on line bullshit. It's old and played out and wasn't a good excuse when it was ever remotely plausible. Oh and grow some balls already.