ADVERTISEMENT

GOP candidates say we should go back to torture

I do not give my government permission to torture in my name any more than I give my government permission to execute people in my name.

I'm not saying I might not do either of those deeds, myself, in some extreme circumstance. I haven't yet, and I hope I never will, but I won't rule it out. But I don't give anyone else permission to do so.

Why would anyone give anyone permission to do so?
 
Interesting info, so thanks, but what's your point?
If you didn't see the point, then I don't need to point it out.

Regarding the tough choice - you do what you have to in order to get the best info\result you think you can get. Not always going to work out for you but would rather try everything and lose then do nothing and lose.
 
I do not give my government permission to torture in my name any more than I give my government permission to execute people in my name.

I'm not saying I might not do either of those deeds, myself, in some extreme circumstance. I haven't yet, and I hope I never will, but I won't rule it out. But I don't give anyone else permission to do so.

Why would anyone give anyone permission to do so?

They didn't ask for you permission by the way and they still do it.
 
If you didn't see the point, then I don't need to point it out.

Regarding the tough choice - you do what you have to in order to get the best info\result you think you can get. Not always going to work out for you but would rather try everything and lose then do nothing and lose.
So . . . you either didn't have a point or thought that arguing from a discredited authority about alleged modest successes would somehow change the minds of people who consider torture to be immoral and criminal?

That's just stupid. Which is why I asked what your point was. I was giving you the benefit of doubt that you actually had a good point.

It's clear that you have no moral compass.

And yet we let you vote.

God help us.
 
Nice. Way to create the tough case to justify the general practice.

We aren't talking about 1 person who we know for certain has the info that will save lives that that person was complicit in putting in jeopardy. Even those who oppose torture may be swayed in such a case. Instead, we are talking about whether it's justified to torture thousands of people, some of whom may be totally innocent, and many of whom will have no information that we, upon contemplation, would say is particularly useful.

Let me throw a hard case back at you. Suppose the person you plan to torture to get the info to save your sister is not actually complicit. He knows the info you want but has been told by the terrorists that they will kill his whole family if he tells you anything.

Because it's your sister, you may feel justified to torture an innocent person and condemn other innocents to save your sister's life. Tough call. But is that hard case how you should be making policy?
I'm considering responding to this post, but first I want to clarify who's kid sister it is. Is it WWJD's? or Vroom's?

JK. If your sister gets saved, but you don't approve of the methods used to gain the information needed to save her, how much will you complain?
 
So . . . you either didn't have a point or thought that arguing from a discredited authority about alleged modest successes would somehow change the minds of people who consider torture to be immoral and criminal?

That's just stupid. Which is why I asked what your point was. I was giving you the benefit of doubt that you actually had a good point.

It's clear that you have no moral compass.

And yet we let you vote.

God help us.
You don't let me - it's my right.

The easily displayed point was that it (EIT) worked in certain situations. I'll take my late Father-in-laws word that it works. He did it for a while.

Moral compass would go out the window if somebody had a family member of mine.
 
I'm considering responding to this post, but first I want to clarify who's kid sister it is. Is it WWJD's? or Vroom's?

JK. If your sister gets saved, but you don't approve of the methods used to gain the information needed to save her, how much will you complain?
Something along the lines of this...
1412261284-db0198c8ab714a512a8c0b5ea34689d6-600x405.jpg
 
Last edited:
Don't believe I put any comment about drinking in any form. Not sure what you are referencing there.

You had stated: What I think is that the people who participate in these interrogations know more about it than anonymous posters on internet message boards.

I was just pointing out that the people who were in charge of EIT were not "experts" in any form of the word.
It wasn't you. My bad. The asshole comment should have been directed to lifelonghawk.

I didn't say the guys doing the interrogation were experts. I just said that people who did the interrogations knew more about it than anonymous posters on the Internet -- and more to the point, they know more about the incidents in which they participated that does anyone who didn't participate.

I think it's an entirely reasonable position to say that torture isn't justified and shouldn't be used. It isn't reasonable at all to say torture never works, because history has shown this is not the case. Huge difference between saying something isn't the best way to accomplish a goal and saying it won't accomplish the goal.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT