- This topic has 425 replies, 30 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 6 months ago by
Shadowfax.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 16, 2009 at 11:07 PM #383023April 16, 2009 at 11:50 PM #382459
Veritas
Participant“Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.” Otto Eduard Leopold von Bismarck
The same can be said about waterboarding…April 16, 2009 at 11:50 PM #382729Participant“Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.” Otto Eduard Leopold von Bismarck
The same can be said about waterboarding…April 16, 2009 at 11:50 PM #382920Participant“Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.” Otto Eduard Leopold von Bismarck
The same can be said about waterboarding…April 16, 2009 at 11:50 PM #382967Participant“Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.” Otto Eduard Leopold von Bismarck
The same can be said about waterboarding…April 16, 2009 at 11:50 PM #383099Participant“Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.” Otto Eduard Leopold von Bismarck
The same can be said about waterboarding…April 17, 2009 at 9:01 AM #382697SanDiegoDave
ParticipantThe U.S. has laws against torture. What was done is clearly torture. The U.S. has, as a matter of policy, labeled those techniques as torture when describing other countries that engage in them (like Indonesia).
Whether you’re pro-torture or anti-torture, we’re a nation of laws. The fact is, GW was too much of a coward to admit what he and Cheney authorized was torture and was illegal. If he wanted to engage in these things he should have asked Congress to change to the laws and we could have had the national debate over it.
OR, in the bullshit fictional Jack Bauer world of “ticking time bomb” (no such scenario is presented in the memos, btw) Bush could have argued that he needed to order the torture in e moment of haste to “save millions” of lives. Then he could have let the Congress decide whether or not to impeach him for his lawbreaking. But he never did that. He came out and stated, matter-of-factly, “The Unites States doesn’t torture.” He broke the law, and then lied about it.
If you think the U.S. should use torture, then argue for it to be legalized. Create the “Torture Manual” for the DoD and run with it. But if you think it’s okay for a President to just go breaking the law because “he” happens to think it’s ok at the time, then you really are someone who believes in tyranny – that the government can do whatever they want, whenever they want, just because a handful of elites authorize it and they never have to suffer the consequences.
April 17, 2009 at 9:01 AM #382966ParticipantThe U.S. has laws against torture. What was done is clearly torture. The U.S. has, as a matter of policy, labeled those techniques as torture when describing other countries that engage in them (like Indonesia).
Whether you’re pro-torture or anti-torture, we’re a nation of laws. The fact is, GW was too much of a coward to admit what he and Cheney authorized was torture and was illegal. If he wanted to engage in these things he should have asked Congress to change to the laws and we could have had the national debate over it.
OR, in the bullshit fictional Jack Bauer world of “ticking time bomb” (no such scenario is presented in the memos, btw) Bush could have argued that he needed to order the torture in e moment of haste to “save millions” of lives. Then he could have let the Congress decide whether or not to impeach him for his lawbreaking. But he never did that. He came out and stated, matter-of-factly, “The Unites States doesn’t torture.” He broke the law, and then lied about it.
If you think the U.S. should use torture, then argue for it to be legalized. Create the “Torture Manual” for the DoD and run with it. But if you think it’s okay for a President to just go breaking the law because “he” happens to think it’s ok at the time, then you really are someone who believes in tyranny – that the government can do whatever they want, whenever they want, just because a handful of elites authorize it and they never have to suffer the consequences.
April 17, 2009 at 9:01 AM #383160ParticipantThe U.S. has laws against torture. What was done is clearly torture. The U.S. has, as a matter of policy, labeled those techniques as torture when describing other countries that engage in them (like Indonesia).
Whether you’re pro-torture or anti-torture, we’re a nation of laws. The fact is, GW was too much of a coward to admit what he and Cheney authorized was torture and was illegal. If he wanted to engage in these things he should have asked Congress to change to the laws and we could have had the national debate over it.
OR, in the bullshit fictional Jack Bauer world of “ticking time bomb” (no such scenario is presented in the memos, btw) Bush could have argued that he needed to order the torture in e moment of haste to “save millions” of lives. Then he could have let the Congress decide whether or not to impeach him for his lawbreaking. But he never did that. He came out and stated, matter-of-factly, “The Unites States doesn’t torture.” He broke the law, and then lied about it.
If you think the U.S. should use torture, then argue for it to be legalized. Create the “Torture Manual” for the DoD and run with it. But if you think it’s okay for a President to just go breaking the law because “he” happens to think it’s ok at the time, then you really are someone who believes in tyranny – that the government can do whatever they want, whenever they want, just because a handful of elites authorize it and they never have to suffer the consequences.
April 17, 2009 at 9:01 AM #383206ParticipantThe U.S. has laws against torture. What was done is clearly torture. The U.S. has, as a matter of policy, labeled those techniques as torture when describing other countries that engage in them (like Indonesia).
Whether you’re pro-torture or anti-torture, we’re a nation of laws. The fact is, GW was too much of a coward to admit what he and Cheney authorized was torture and was illegal. If he wanted to engage in these things he should have asked Congress to change to the laws and we could have had the national debate over it.
OR, in the bullshit fictional Jack Bauer world of “ticking time bomb” (no such scenario is presented in the memos, btw) Bush could have argued that he needed to order the torture in e moment of haste to “save millions” of lives. Then he could have let the Congress decide whether or not to impeach him for his lawbreaking. But he never did that. He came out and stated, matter-of-factly, “The Unites States doesn’t torture.” He broke the law, and then lied about it.
If you think the U.S. should use torture, then argue for it to be legalized. Create the “Torture Manual” for the DoD and run with it. But if you think it’s okay for a President to just go breaking the law because “he” happens to think it’s ok at the time, then you really are someone who believes in tyranny – that the government can do whatever they want, whenever they want, just because a handful of elites authorize it and they never have to suffer the consequences.
April 17, 2009 at 9:01 AM #383336ParticipantThe U.S. has laws against torture. What was done is clearly torture. The U.S. has, as a matter of policy, labeled those techniques as torture when describing other countries that engage in them (like Indonesia).
Whether you’re pro-torture or anti-torture, we’re a nation of laws. The fact is, GW was too much of a coward to admit what he and Cheney authorized was torture and was illegal. If he wanted to engage in these things he should have asked Congress to change to the laws and we could have had the national debate over it.
OR, in the bullshit fictional Jack Bauer world of “ticking time bomb” (no such scenario is presented in the memos, btw) Bush could have argued that he needed to order the torture in e moment of haste to “save millions” of lives. Then he could have let the Congress decide whether or not to impeach him for his lawbreaking. But he never did that. He came out and stated, matter-of-factly, “The Unites States doesn’t torture.” He broke the law, and then lied about it.
If you think the U.S. should use torture, then argue for it to be legalized. Create the “Torture Manual” for the DoD and run with it. But if you think it’s okay for a President to just go breaking the law because “he” happens to think it’s ok at the time, then you really are someone who believes in tyranny – that the government can do whatever they want, whenever they want, just because a handful of elites authorize it and they never have to suffer the consequences.
April 17, 2009 at 9:16 AM #382737afx114
ParticipantWell said SanDiegoDave.
I’m no expert on torture, but it seems to me that if I was being tortured I would tell the torturers whatever they wanted to hear in order to get them to stop — whether it is truthful or not. What if I didn’t know the answer? Wouldn’t I tell them anything to get them to stop?
Have there been studies done on the validity of information gained via torture? It seems to me that torture is a low percentage proposition.
April 17, 2009 at 9:16 AM #383006ParticipantWell said SanDiegoDave.
I’m no expert on torture, but it seems to me that if I was being tortured I would tell the torturers whatever they wanted to hear in order to get them to stop — whether it is truthful or not. What if I didn’t know the answer? Wouldn’t I tell them anything to get them to stop?
Have there been studies done on the validity of information gained via torture? It seems to me that torture is a low percentage proposition.
April 17, 2009 at 9:16 AM #383199ParticipantWell said SanDiegoDave.
I’m no expert on torture, but it seems to me that if I was being tortured I would tell the torturers whatever they wanted to hear in order to get them to stop — whether it is truthful or not. What if I didn’t know the answer? Wouldn’t I tell them anything to get them to stop?
Have there been studies done on the validity of information gained via torture? It seems to me that torture is a low percentage proposition.
April 17, 2009 at 9:16 AM #383245ParticipantWell said SanDiegoDave.
I’m no expert on torture, but it seems to me that if I was being tortured I would tell the torturers whatever they wanted to hear in order to get them to stop — whether it is truthful or not. What if I didn’t know the answer? Wouldn’t I tell them anything to get them to stop?
Have there been studies done on the validity of information gained via torture? It seems to me that torture is a low percentage proposition.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.