Shepard Smith from Fox just earned my respect

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: 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:

You will find the answer to your question in a document commonly referred to as "The Constitution of the United States."

However, to save you time, it's Congress' job to declare and wage war. The President is Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces. He ins turn is accountable to Congress. The Constitution is very careful about limiting the power of the executive branch, something that all Presidents over the past several decades have consolidated.

Simply put, the document does not give the President unlimited power to do whatever he/she feels is necessary to "protect us." All of his authority must be granted by Congress, and by extension, the people.

 

[RY62]

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.

True.

Torture is always wrong. Terrorists killing innocent civilians or planning to kill innocent civilians are always wrong. War is always wrong but is often unavoidable.

The way I see it, if I or those I protect are threatened or attacked, to the point where I feel compelled to fight, I will fight to win. There will be no thought of the moral high ground or equal response. I will do whatever I feel is neccesary to completely eliminate the threat. I expect no less from those who protect and defend this country.

IMO the only rule should be that when someone attacks us they should be given no quarter and we sould expect the same if we attack another. It's just not in me to turn the other cheek.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: RY62

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.

True.

Torture is always wrong. Terrorists killing innocent civilians or planning to kill innocent civilians are always wrong. War is always wrong but is often unavoidable.

The way I see it, if I or those I protect are threatened or attacked, to the point where I feel compelled to fight, I will fight to win. There will be no thought of the moral high ground or equal response. I will do whatever I feel is neccesary to completely eliminate the threat. I expect no less from those who protect and defend this country.

IMO the only rule should be that when someone attacks us they should be given no quarter and we sould expect the same if we attack another. It's just not in me to turn the other cheek.

So, what will you do to avoid being some son of a bitch off killing foreigners not because they threaten your famiy, but because a US corporation there faced lower profits?

What will you do to avoid being some son of a bitch off killing two million vietnamese who want to be free of colonization because your leaders think it's a nice idea?

It's one thing for you to talk about ignoring 'the moral high ground' in a scenario when an aggressor threatens your nation - but are you as adamant about opposing your own nation being that aggressor? That's a huge flaw in the political system, that the lives of people overseas are lost based on the indifference of people here.

 

[RY62]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: RY62

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.

True.

Torture is always wrong. Terrorists killing innocent civilians or planning to kill innocent civilians are always wrong. War is always wrong but is often unavoidable.

The way I see it, if I or those I protect are threatened or attacked, to the point where I feel compelled to fight, I will fight to win. There will be no thought of the moral high ground or equal response. I will do whatever I feel is neccesary to completely eliminate the threat. I expect no less from those who protect and defend this country.

IMO the only rule should be that when someone attacks us they should be given no quarter and we sould expect the same if we attack another. It's just not in me to turn the other cheek.

So, what will you do to avoid being some son of a bitch off killing foreigners not because they threaten your famiy, but because a US corporation there faced lower profits?

What will you do to avoid being some son of a bitch off killing two million vietnamese who want to be free of colonization because your leaders think it's a nice idea?

It's one thing for you to talk about ignoring 'the moral high ground' in a scenario when an aggressor threatens your nation - but are you as adamant about opposing your own nation being that aggressor? That's a huge flaw in the political system, that the lives of people overseas are lost based on the indifference of people here.

Yes, I am adamant about opposing my own nation being the aggressor. I said that we should expect no quarter when we are the aggressors.

I was very vocal against the invasion of Iraq. Not because I didn't think that Saddam needed to be taken out but because I didn't believe there was justification at the time. I did feel that we should have gone all the way the first time, in defense of Kuwait.

As it pertains to the current discussion, we were attacked and I have absolutely no compassion for those who were responsible for those attacks. Waterboarding...LOL...they got off too easy.

 

[whylaff]

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: 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:

You will find the answer to your question in a document commonly referred to as "The Constitution of the United States."

However, to save you time, it's Congress' job to declare and wage war. The President is Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces. He ins turn is accountable to Congress. The Constitution is very careful about limiting the power of the executive branch, something that all Presidents over the past several decades have consolidated.

Simply put, the document does not give the President unlimited power to do whatever he/she feels is necessary to "protect us." All of his authority must be granted by Congress, and by extension, the people.

All presidential authority does not have to be approved by Congress. There are explicit and implied powers for the executive within the Constitution. If the United States has war declared against it (formally or through actions), the executive is under no expectation to get a declaration of war before proceeding with a response. After 9/11 there was a general consensus to blindly interpreting it as an act of war. But, I would argue that it is not in the traditional sense, which would change the scope of power.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

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

That might make some perverted kind of sense... IF it would accomplish anything. The problem is, it wouldn't. As I said, before...

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.

Until you can do that, repeating your lies doesn't make them anymore true. It just proves that you're an inhuman monster as evil as the worst to be found in the worst of our enemies.

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: whylaff

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: 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:

You will find the answer to your question in a document commonly referred to as "The Constitution of the United States."

However, to save you time, it's Congress' job to declare and wage war. The President is Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces. He ins turn is accountable to Congress. The Constitution is very careful about limiting the power of the executive branch, something that all Presidents over the past several decades have consolidated.

Simply put, the document does not give the President unlimited power to do whatever he/she feels is necessary to "protect us." All of his authority must be granted by Congress, and by extension, the people.

All presidential authority does not have to be approved by Congress. There are explicit and implied powers for the executive within the Constitution. If the United States has war declared against it (formally or through actions), the executive is under no expectation to get a declaration of war before proceeding with a response. After 9/11 there was a general consensus to blindly interpreting it as an act of war. But, I would argue that it is not in the traditional sense, which would change the scope of power.

I misspoke. The Constitution does grant the President specific powers, what I was referring to was the ability to wage war unrestricted. He doesn't not have that authority, even if we are attacked (I'm not sure where you are getting that from, it may have been approved later but it is not in the Constitution).

 

[whylaff]

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: whylaff

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: 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:

You will find the answer to your question in a document commonly referred to as "The Constitution of the United States."

However, to save you time, it's Congress' job to declare and wage war. The President is Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces. He ins turn is accountable to Congress. The Constitution is very careful about limiting the power of the executive branch, something that all Presidents over the past several decades have consolidated.

Simply put, the document does not give the President unlimited power to do whatever he/she feels is necessary to "protect us." All of his authority must be granted by Congress, and by extension, the people.

All presidential authority does not have to be approved by Congress. There are explicit and implied powers for the executive within the Constitution. If the United States has war declared against it (formally or through actions), the executive is under no expectation to get a declaration of war before proceeding with a response. After 9/11 there was a general consensus to blindly interpreting it as an act of war. But, I would argue that it is not in the traditional sense, which would change the scope of power.

I misspoke. The Constitution does grant the President specific powers, what I was referring to was the ability to wage war unrestricted. He doesn't not have that authority, even if we are attacked (I'm not sure where you are getting that from, it may have been approved later but it is not in the Constitution).

You are correct, it is not in the Constitution in with the other enumerated powers But?Article I grants Congress authority to declare war, Article II recognizes the president as commander in chief in addition to ?executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States? and is the source of inherent powers (those that are not enumerated, but implied as required to fulfill duty of office) and the ?constitutional theory? and ?stewardship theory? of power debates. The Supreme Court has historically left matters of international relations in the hands of the executive. (?Sole Organ?) In 1863, disputes due to the lack of formal declaration of war against the Confederacy ?the Court stated ??the President is not only authorized, but bound to resist force. He does not initiate the war, but is bound to accept the challenge without waiting for any special legislative authority?. The Vietnam War initially was conducted without a formal declaration of war. Of course, the War Powers Resolution was passed in 1973, but it has never been invoked formally and has subsequently never been challenged in the Court. Reagan simply notified Congress in regards to sending troops to Beirut, Lebanon and Grenada.

Just to clarify: my intention is not to agree/disagree with you, merely point out that there is another side to the argument.

 

[RapidSnail]

Question: What should we do instead of torture to extract information?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: RY62

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.

True.

Torture is always wrong. Terrorists killing innocent civilians or planning to kill innocent civilians are always wrong. War is always wrong but is often unavoidable.

The way I see it, if I or those I protect are threatened or attacked, to the point where I feel compelled to fight, I will fight to win. There will be no thought of the moral high ground or equal response. I will do whatever I feel is neccesary to completely eliminate the threat. I expect no less from those who protect and defend this country.

IMO the only rule should be that when someone attacks us they should be given no quarter and we sould expect the same if we attack another. It's just not in me to turn the other cheek.

Fail

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Question: What should we do instead of torture to extract information?

The FBI had expert interrogators who have done well in the past, who were pushed aside unfer the Bush administration. They're fine - info needing torture, we don't get.

 

[Mani]

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

Has nothing to do with feeling "icky" and has everything to do with maintaining our moral superiority over our enemies. What you don't seem to "get" is that our higher standards are what separates us from the rogue states and terrorist organizations we are fighting. If we are compromising, then we may as well be another one of them, only with bigger guns.

I'm not naive enough to think that we will never torture, but noone has been able to convince me that it's needed to keep this country safe.

 

[Elias824]

I cant agree with torture under any circumstances, I dont care if there is a nuke in new york city that will go off if we dont torture a guy. This is what America was founded on, that is what we stand for, that is why we are better then the bad guys. If people have to die in order to save us from destroying who we are then so be it!

 

[Lanyap]

Originally posted by: Elias824
I cant agree with torture under any circumstances, I dont care if there is a nuke in new york city that will go off if we dont torture a guy. This is what America was founded on, that is what we stand for, that is why we are better then the bad guys. If people have to die in order to save us from destroying who we are then so be it!

So it would be acceptable if it was the city you and your family or loved ones live in? I don't agree with torture either except under extreme circumstances like terrorists preparing to nuke a city in the US and the appropriate officials give the approval.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Question: What should we do instead of torture to extract information?

Was this a joke question?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Lanyap

Originally posted by: Elias824
I cant agree with torture under any circumstances, I dont care if there is a nuke in new york city that will go off if we dont torture a guy. This is what America was founded on, that is what we stand for, that is why we are better then the bad guys. If people have to die in order to save us from destroying who we are then so be it!

So it would be acceptable if it was the city you and your family or loved ones live in? I don't agree with torture either except under extreme circumstances like terrorists preparing to nuke a city in the US and the appropriate officials give the approval.

I'd considered writing a post to say that I'd support torture of someone if the issue were that it were the only way to prevent a nuclear attack. But the logic goes another direction.

Let's say we approve that. In the real world, how does that policy get written, and how much can it be abused?

If we just approved the 100% chance of attack situation, what if the odds were 90%? 50%? 10%? 1%?

There's a book called 'the One-percent Docttrin' by Ron Susskind, because that's the Cheny doctrine that if there's a 1% chance of a threat to the US, you have to have your policy be the same as a 100% chance. It doesn't get much clearer than that how easy it is for that '100% standard' to change radically - the Cheney Doctrine can be applied any time. And from 1%, it's easy to say 'possible threat' and concoct scenarios where a plot is uncovered through 'enhanced interrogation'.

And then there's the scope. How can you approve it for a nuclear attack - but not a biological attack? And how do you draw the line on the casualties - why not for a conventional attack with the same casualties as a nuke? Why not half tha mnay casualties - why not a thousand, a hundred, ten, one American? How do you explain "I'm sorry, but we can't torture to save 100 Americans, only 101."

In short, while I think a case can be made for torture to prevent a nuclear attack, it seems the real question is, are we willing to allow the broad overuse of torture that actually happens if the door is opened, to 'defend' based on a mythical scenario that almost certainly won't happen - I think the answer to that question can be, no torture. That's the only deceent policy.

 

[trooper11]

Originally posted by: Harvey



That might make some perverted kind of sense... IF it would accomplish anything. The problem is, it wouldn't. As I said, before...

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.

Until you can do that, repeating your lies doesn't make them anymore true. It just proves that you're an inhuman monster as evil as the worst to be found in the worst of our enemies.

and thats exactly why we should get to see all the documents pertaining to this. If there is evidence of results, then they would have verfiable evidence to support their claims. now wether we want to see that evidence ro not, is another debate.


besides, even if there was such evidence, you would still be against the practice right?

 

[trooper11]

Originally posted by: Craig234

I'd considered writing a post to say that I'd support torture of someone if the issue were that it were the only way to prevent a nuclear attack. But the logic goes another direction.

Let's say we approve that. In the real world, how does that policy get written, and how much can it be abused?

If we just approved the 100% chance of attack situation, what if the odds were 90%? 50%? 10%? 1%?


In short, while I think a case can be made for torture to prevent a nuclear attack, it seems the real question is, are we willing to allow the broad overuse of torture that actually happens if the door is opened, to 'defend' based on a mythical scenario that almost certainly won't happen - I think the answer to that question can be, no torture. That's the only deceent policy.

great points here. i agree that any extreme scenario that would warrant 'extreme' measures should not/could not be included in any written rules. so while something like that may happen, its not to be used as standard tactic in every situation.

now once that is settled then you can move on to defining where toture starts (i know, there are plenty of guides out there, but there are plenty of conflicting opnions on the subject).

 

[imported_tomboy]

Originally posted by: Mani

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

Has nothing to do with feeling "icky" and has everything to do with maintaining our moral superiority over our enemies. What you don't seem to "get" is that our higher standards are what separates us from the rogue states and terrorist organizations we are fighting. If we are compromising, then we may as well be another one of them, only with bigger guns.

I'm not naive enough to think that we will never torture, but noone has been able to convince me that it's needed to keep this country safe.

no matter what it always comes back to, what will you do when they come knocking at your door again? stand on your moral superiority to protect your loved ones or pull out your bigger guns. myself i will live with the latter

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: tomboy
no matter what it always comes back to, what will you do when they come knocking at your door again? stand on your moral superiority to protect your loved ones or pull out your bigger guns. myself i will live with the latter

google false choice

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: tomboy
no matter what it always comes back to, what will you do when they come knocking at your door again? stand on your moral superiority to protect your loved ones or pull out your bigger guns. myself i will live with the latter

So it's torture, or have terrorists knocking on my door...what a ridiculous proposition.

 

[chucky2]

And we've got right back to Accountability.

The point is not that the terrorists will be 'knocking on your door'. The point is that the terrorists will be back, killing someone, somewhere (99.997% chance it won't be you or yours though, given the all the area and people in the world). So, because of that very small chance you run, you can take the "Well, they'll never "knock on my door", so please make sure they get all their Red Cross and unsupervised lawyer visits" stance.

The problem is that while you can say that, there are others elsewhere (like the Leadership of our governments, military, and intelligence services) who are accountable for those deaths: Accountable for not doing all they can to stop them.

And that is precisely why the millions of whiners, who despite their sizable voiceprint, don't rate on making the call on what to do, and when to do it, on how we handle WoT detainees. That decision should lie with our elected politcal Leadership, who will in turn appoint the military Leadership and civilian Leadership of the Intelligence services, who control what goes on with these detainees.

We elect the politcal Leadership, nothing less, nothing more.

Since our populace elected Obama this time around, along with more Dem's, then whatever policies they decide to push through are what's going to be followed. The consequences of those polices, both good and bad, will be realized - both in the near term, and the long term.

Chuck

 

[OutHouse]

i like listening to Smith on my drive home. he does a good job of just reporting he news and that is all i want. he is no talking head just a journalist

 

[deftron]

CNN should have traded Glenn Beck for him

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Question: What should we do instead of torture to extract information?

The FBI had expert interrogators who have done well in the past, who were pushed aside unfer the Bush administration. They're fine - info needing torture, we don't get.

But what I mean, is what techniques are used to extract information? My mind is blank with ideas since most of the methods I can think of involve some sort of physical discomfort. I don't know where the line between torture and valid interrogation is set.

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Question: What should we do instead of torture to extract information?

Was this a joke question?

Yeah, completely a joke buddy...:roll: