Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>You hint that we torture because we are evil like the people trying to kill us.<< That's not what I was saying at all. We allow or accept torture because we are fallen, but being fallen is a far different thing than being evil. >>We are the good guys, but good guys have to do things sometimes they would never do in order to keep the country safe.<< It's my belief that when we can justify things like torture, we move further away from being considered "good guys". We used to stand for something more than that. On balance, we are still the world's best hope for the future but only if we remember our values. >>Would you kill a man who was about to hurt or kill your family?? If you say no, then you really need to re evaluate who you are because your RESPONSIBILITY as a man is to protect your family.<< Yes, I would. But if I was trying to get information out of him about an imminent threat, I wouldn't rely on inflicting pain to get an answer out of him. I was a little brother - I know from first hand experience that people will say just about anything just to get you to stop.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy I was on only child, maybe that's my problem? Jack Bauer makes pain work on the bad guys... so there. Also, if you ask the guys in the CIA or what ever department that does this stuff, they are going to admit that the best way to get info is by making the person in custody very unfomfortable. I remeber a soldier in Iraq a year or so back that fired a gun by a prisoners head to scare him... guess what?? The guy talked and we saved some hostages before they became headless. Of course the left wanted this soldier locked up for being mean. If being nice to them worked I'm sure we would go that route.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>You are not going to watch the SUPER BOWL when the Seahawks are in for the first time??<< Nope. I've got a date with my two favorite ladies to play in the snow. I wouldn't pass that up for anything.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>If being nice to them worked I'm sure we would go that route. << We go that route all the time. It just doesn't make the news.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> If we were to ever torture, it would be a last resort in order to save lives, not to be evil like the enemy. << What are you basing this on? Certainly not any facts in evidence. I posted excerpts from an AP story earlier in this thread about three different people we tortured, through "rendition" that were innocent. Throw in our actions at abu ghraib and guantanamo bay, and it's evident that we're torturing lots of people all the time. It is NOT the "last resort" you seem to think. >> You hint that we torture because we are evil like the people trying to kill us. ( Muslims who follow the Koran ) << So muslims who follow the koran are "evil". Got it. >> If torturing people in other countries is what it takes to stop the next massive attack, then it's what we should be doing. << No - it's not what we should be doing. It increases the danger to our soldiers and to us. Your idea that it will "stop the next massive attack" is nothing but conjecture, and a patently transparent attempt to justify the actions of "your guy" bush - no matter what crimes he may commit.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper We live in a country where a vast majority of the people support abortion and capitol punishment. Whey is it a stretch or so unimaginable that we would also support torture tactics to keep us safe? I'm just saying...it doesn't seem like a huge conclusion to jump to.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I don't like the idea of all three. But, I don't oppose all three. Call me consistently inconsistent. I was just trying to put some perspective on this. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if some of the same people who are angry about the torture issue are perfectly fine with capitol punishement and it makes you wonder why that is.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I am opposed to capital punishment, and I think it's barbaric for a society to take on the power to decide who deserves to die. Obviously I am also opposed to torture. The next time we hear about an american being tortured by our enemies, we've got no right to squawk - we do the same thing to them - and even to people who aren't affiliated with them, but just happen to have the wrong name, skin color, national origin or religion.
Originally Posted By woody I prefer a policy that best protects INNOCENT life. That's why I oppose abortion (protect innocent life), want capital punishment (kill the guilty murderers who may kill again in prison or outside of prison), and want stressful interrogations (not torture, but don't mind if they do). "The next time we hear about an american being tortured by our enemies, we've got no right to squawk" This is hideous in several levels. 1. We never tortured anyone. Even if we outsourced it, it was to do stressful interrogations. 2. So your revulsion to torture is really not absolute. You show your fake distain when it really happens. When I see reports from Saddam's prisons and the Iraq insurgent groups who maim and torture for political reasons, it shows cruelty and distain for life and no real protection of human rights. They torture other Muslims. Their skin color should matter, but what you don't know keeps your morality intact. We need to protect Americans. That's the goal. Our goal isn't to advance political aims, but I suppose you just don't understand.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>I prefer a policy that best protects INNOCENT life.<< How Christian of you. I prefer to think of all human life as sacred from "conception to natural death" as John Paul the Great called said. >>1. We never tortured anyone. Even if we outsourced it, it was to do stressful interrogations.<< Is that what they're calling it these days. And the interrogators aren't torturers, they're pain technicians, right?
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder Post 128. I take it you haven't gotten around to the latest post from the moderators?
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> John Paul the Great << Really! What's so great about him? Nevermind though, I don't want to derail my own thread with a valentine to JP.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>they're pain technicians, right<< How about "information expeditor"?
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>>> John Paul the Great << Really! What's so great about him? Nevermind though, I don't want to derail my own thread with a valentine to JP.<< The title of "Magnus" (The Great) is usually given to leaders and pontiffs (i.e., Pompeii Magnus, Leo the Great, Gregory the Great, Peter the Great) who have affected great and important changes to the world. It's also done by popular acclaim...there's no official means of doing it.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> 1. We never tortured anyone. << Of course we did. We're still doing it. >> Even if we outsourced it, it was to do stressful interrogations. << You're really banking on that euphemism, aren't you. >> 2. So your revulsion to torture is really not absolute. You show your fake distain when it really happens. << Absolutely it is. But I also understand that people who live in glass houses ... >> Our goal isn't to advance political aims, but I suppose you just don't understand. << I understand just fine. "Bush's" goal is to advance political aims, and to shift wealth.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder >> Even if we outsourced it, it was to do stressful interrogations. << When I was an investigator, I did "stressful interrogations". Using that kind of euphemism here is a joke and fools no one.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Well it obviously fools some. But only those willing to be fooled. That's the bush M.O. - just tell `em what they want to hear. Otherwise known as "lying".
