Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I don't care about getting information. I care about seeing these people suffer. Surely none of you mind seeing a terrorist getting his ass handed to him." Siggghhhh. Nne.Is.Saying.Anything.Different. Just the same, without due process, or some semblance of fact finding, are you okay with making innocent people suffer as well? What if we've rounded up people who aren't terrorists? Are you fine with torturing people just because they fit the profile?
Originally Posted By hopemax I was reading the July 7th issue of People magazine while in the dentist's chair today. In the "25 Questions for John McCain." The first executive order he would sign as president -- That "we will never torture another person in the custody of the United States of America."
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Too bad, then, that he voted to allow it to continue just this past February. <a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/02/mccain-against.html" target="_blank">http://andrewsullivan.theatlan...nst.html</a> "This is why the focus on waterboarding has been necessary but distracting. It has allowed people to believe that this relatively rare technique is the beginning and end of the Bush-Cheney torture regime. It isn't. It's a fraction of the illegal abuse that they have condoned and believe in. I simply cannot see any explanation for this except politics - that McCain feels the need to appease the Republican far right at this point in time, and, tragically, the right to torture has now become a litmus test of "conservative" orthodoxy. It's a Karl Rove wedge issue of a classic kind: using the crudest of emotional appeals to gin up populist authoritarianism for the sake of Republican partisan advantage in wartime. There is nothing conservative about torture, of course. But the authoritarians of the far right are hardly conservatives in the traditional sense either. So McCain reveals himself as a positioner even on the subject on which he has gained a reputation for unimpeachable integrity. It's worth reading Jon Chait's illuminating new piece in this context. I repeat that I am heartbroken. McCain has indeed been a leader in preventing the military from torturing terror suspects, and in banning waterboarding. But by leaving this lacuna in the law, he gives this president the space he wants. "
Originally Posted By DAR <<Nne.Is.Saying.Anything.Different. Just the same, without due process, or some semblance of fact finding, are you okay with making innocent people suffer as well? What if we've rounded up people who aren't terrorists? Are you fine with torturing people just because they fit the profile?>> 1. No I don't want innocent people to suffer. That's been my point and that's what I'm hoping this is preventing. 2. If we have rounded up people who are "innocent" then we should apologize. I'm just a little skeptical on their "innocence" 3. I fine with torturing terrorists. How more f'n clear can I be on this.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Good for John McCain I hope he keeps his word.> <3. I fine with torturing terrorists. How more f'n clear can I be on this.> Huh? You say you hope McCain keeps his word that "we will never torture another person in the custody of the United States of America."... and then you say you're fine with torturing terrorists? Huh? <2. If we have rounded up people who are "innocent" then we should apologize. I'm just a little skeptical on their "innocence"> A number of people have been released, sometimes after years (and sometimes after torture) from Guantanamo. Since there have been no trials yet to determine their guilt or innocence, and because we insist that we must hold people at Guantanamo as long as we think they might be terrorists, this must be because we think they're innocent, otherwise we could just hold them as long as we wanted. So no need for the skepticism.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "3. I fine with torturing terrorists. How more f'n clear can I be on this." Because you don't really frickin' know what you're talking about, but hey, no amount of reaching out to you is going to work, so enjoy.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Let me see if I understand.... 1. Torture isn't for getting info, it's for revenge. 2. Torture terrorists all we want. But not innocent people. 3. Don't capture innocent people, that's bad. No reason for accidentally picking up the wrong guy. Let innocent people go. 4. But then again, I am not real sure how "innocent" any of them are, once you think about it. I mean, let's face it, none of them are exactly Mother Teresa, you know? 5. So, torture away, because I hate terrorists more than anybody else in the whole wide world. Serves them right! 6. But I hope John McCain makes sure to stop all torture like he promised.
Originally Posted By DAR So what would you guys like me to say. That no matter how awful the people we are torturing our because by doing it we lose our soul. No matter how many times they send someone to hijack a plane. Or blow up a marketplace. Or how many innocent people they kill. Or they want to wipe Israel off the map. Because as long as we're not torturing that's all that matters.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***The first executive order he would sign as president -- That "we will never torture another person in the custody of the United States of America." Good for John McCain I hope he keeps his word. I fine with torturing terrorists. How more f'n clear can I be on this.*** Perhaps Dar IS John McCain, trying to parse things out here on LP.
Originally Posted By Granslammam abama wont hurt those muslims becuse he has learned so much from our best counrty please i need you all to vote for the obamma for our leader on this big race this fall god bless to evyone hefre on this fine place
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<BringBackToad was mean as sin but at least she was literate.>> I think this was a different character than Bring Back Toad. This one acted all nice and said everyone should love everyone and why do we all have these harsh words and then went into her second personality and started savaging gay people.
Originally Posted By mele <<I think this was a different character than Bring Back Toad>> I agree. Ultimately, BBT was more fun because crazy is funnier than pretending to be semi-retarded.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Let's re-emphasize dabob's earlier point - McCain talks a good game about disavowing torture, and with understandable reason. But when it came time for him to "walk the talk" he voted AGAINST the torture ban bill. In effect he endorsed our torturing detainees. Why would he do such a thing? My guess is because he'll do just about anything if he thinks it will further his presidential bid - including capitulating on his key issues. This is pandering at it's worst - and it works for some people, as seen on this thread. On DAR's point about torturing terrorists for the sake of vengence - it's not a well thought out position. 1) It invalidates anything the person being tortured might say - which is ostensibly the reason they're being interrogated in the first place. 2) It reduces us as a nation. 3) It increases the danger to our own military. DAR's comeback to this point was that these people are not "in uniform" or fighting for a nation. But we won't always be fighting these guys. It's more than likely that we will one day again be in combat against 'regular army'. As much as bush would like for everyone to believe that this case is "special" and the rules don't apply to HIS war, he's wrong - they do. We don't have one standard of human rights and basic human dignity for one group and a lower set for another. Bush may, but he does not represent the values of this nation and he never did. And it's still possible that he will be tried for war crimes - if not by us then by some international tribunal.
Originally Posted By Mr X I can't imagine that is even conceivable (though I certainly feel he deserves to answer for his actions). Unless you mean being tried in absentia by an international tribunal, but even if so there would be no personal consequences for Bush himself.
Originally Posted By DAR <<It increases the danger to our own military.>> You never once cared about our military. So don't act like you have.
Originally Posted By gadzuux <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/washington/11detain.html?_r=1" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07...tml?_r=1</a> WASHINGTON July 11, 2008 — Red Cross investigators concluded last year in a secret report that the Central Intelligence Agency’s interrogation methods for high-level Qaeda prisoners constituted torture and could make the Bush administration officials who approved them guilty of war crimes, according to a new book on counterterrorism efforts since 2001. The book says that the International Committee of the Red Cross declared in the report, given to the C.I.A. last year, that the methods used on Abu Zubaydah, the first major Qaeda figure the United States captured, were “categorically†torture, which is illegal under both American and international law. The book says Abu Zubaydah was confined in a box “so small he said he had to double up his limbs in the fetal position†and was one of several prisoners to be “slammed against the walls,†according to the Red Cross report. The C.I.A. has admitted that Abu Zubaydah and two other prisoners were waterboarded, a practice in which water is poured on the nose and mouth to create the sensation of suffocation and drowning. Citing unnamed “sources familiar with the report,†Ms. Mayer wrote that the Red Cross document “warned that the abuse constituted war crimes, placing the highest officials in the U.S. government in jeopardy of being prosecuted.†and ... <a href="http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Red_Cross_finds_Bush_admininstration_guilty_0712.html" target="_blank">http://rawstory.com/news/2008/...712.html</a> [C]onstitutional law expert Johnathan Turley said on MSNBC ... "The problem for the Bush administration is that they perfected plausible deniability techniques. They bring out one or two people that are willing to debate on cable shows whether waterboarding is torture and it leaves the impression that its a closed question. "It's not. It's just like the domestic surveillance program that the federal court said just a week ago was also not just a closed question." When asked if the chances are now greater that Bush will be prosecuted now or after leaving office by the international community, Turley compared the situation to Serbia in the early 90s. "I'd never thought I would say this, but I think it might in fact be time for the United States to be held internationally to a tribunal. I never thought in my lifetime I would say that."
