The truth about torture

Jul 2011
83,295
49,028
Memphis, Tn.
Especially if it helps undermine a republican President. This whole thing was more about hurting G W Bush than it was about being mean to evil people.

Proof...remember the constant count of the deaths during Bush terms? No such fervor under Pres Obama, remember all the crying about Gitmo, no such fervor under Obama...

Killing on site is a much better principle, than capturing and interrogating, according to the left.
Anyone stopping you from posting the number of deaths in Iraq & Afghanistan since the start of the Obama administration?
 
Jul 2011
83,295
49,028
Memphis, Tn.
Let me clear up a couple of things. I'am not saying torture is a great idea or one that should be encouraged. What I'am saying is that it should not be taken off the table as an option given the scenario I described earlier. If you are asking me who it should apply to ;the answer is terrorists. The amount of potential deaths is arbitrary. Again it is a lesser of two evils: torture on one side, massive deaths on the other.
Using the same analogy of the lesser of two evils: 100,00 Americans injured or killed each year by firearms, abandonment of the 2nd amendment on the other. it's a tricky and slipperly slope we are discussing here.
 
Jan 2011
31,324
4,394
Boise, Idaho
Do you read the posts here or do you just have a mindset and the rest be damned?

Plenty of us "liberals" and more than one of the indies/libertariarns have criticized Obama. michaelr has posted tons of threads on GITMO, Inky thinks Obama is just like Bush, I cannot stand all the Bush policies that remain in place.

We post against Obama - hell the Wall Street marches are as much against Obama as they are the greedy corps.

Killing on site? Do you mean taking out OBL? I have moral issues with it but at the same time I understand how it was legal and why it happened. After 10 years you think they could have got him without having to resort to such a killing - hell all that torture should have made it easier, don't you think?

Will I vote for Obama - over anything and everything the GOP offers, yes. If you guys offered a better candidate I would consider him/her. But what you have out there right now ain't going to cut it.

Of course I look at it this way, if the GOP wins the office and cannot fix the economy then that will mean an easy win for a Dem in 2016 and maybe then Dean will run or Kucinich and both of those men have liberal values and are not as moderate or Bushlike as Obama.
.
And you will all vote for him again...Bottomline.

Great job deflecting away from my main point. The only reason that torture and waterboarding became a hotbed issue was to undermine a republican President. It's not based upon a moral position, one is used, but it is not the basis of the argument...especially when much worse is excused by the same under a Democrat Pres.

That you cannot and will not acccept that every candidate the right has now is a better option...shows it is what it is. The left will accept anything to avoid fiscal responsibility, anything to hopefully raise taxes on Corps and "the rich", continue to blame the same entity that the liberal ideologists (through regulations and government controls) have hamstrung and refuse to allow the free market system to do what it should be able to do.

Duly noted that you used the term "fix" the economy, liberals are still trying to find the quick fix, instead of recognizing that the only "fix" is American business doing it's business. It's like looking for a fad diet instead of decreasing calories and burning calories...Instead hope their is a way to accomplish the goal without doing the hard work.
 
Jan 2011
31,324
4,394
Boise, Idaho
Anyone stopping you from posting the number of deaths in Iraq & Afghanistan since the start of the Obama administration?
It's the liberal media (fourth estate) not doing what they did when a republican was President. Duh
 

Vortex

Former Staff
Dec 2006
19,921
8,636
home
The WTC attack was used strictly as an example for discussion purposes. Nothing more, nothing less.

I used it to decsribe a scenario where torture could be applied. Almost three thousand deaths on one hand, the principle of torture on the other. My only point is that letting the attck occur is worse than eliminating torture as an option. imo.
But it is a bad example to use for discussion purposes. The Bush administration had the intel without enhanced interrogation, they knew OBL was determined to strike and they did nothing.

The Clinton state department and intelligence community had been working on a deal with the Taliban to turn over OBL and to disband or destroy the terror training camps. That completion of the deal was too close to the election, the Taliban didn't want to hand over OBL and have the terms abandoned or rejected by the new admin, the Bush admin. So the Taliban waited until Bush took over to try to get the deal completed, to hand over OBL for the lifting of some of the sanctions (and presumably the unfreezing of some of their accounts). The Bush White House either ignored or rejected the offer - in February 2011. As we all know, the rest is part of the tragic history of our nation - OBL was able to mastermind 9/11.

And the retired Air Force Colonel who specialized in interrogations answered your question for you:
.
By contrast, it is easy to find experienced U.S. officers who argue precisely the opposite. Meet, for example, retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was "not nice," he says. "But we did not physically abuse them." Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die. Yet -- as he remembers saying to the "desperate and honorable officers" who wanted him to move faster -- "if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything," which would be pointless. Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn't know "any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea."​
.
I ask again, why are so many people unwilling to give up freedoms but so willing to sell their souls for security?
.
 
Last edited:

Vortex

Former Staff
Dec 2006
19,921
8,636
home
It's the liberal media (fourth estate) not doing what they did when a republican was President. Duh
Duh, sure - that is why the liberal media keeps making the wall street marches about Obama's failure and they keep making the efforts look weak - you know, no purpose, no mission, no leader. They depict the tea party as a more organized movement than the Wall Street marches. There is no comparision, but that damn liberal media works to compare so that the tea party looks so good.

.
 

Jets

Former Staff
Feb 2011
24,071
15,226
New York
Using the same analogy of the lesser of two evils: 100,00 Americans injured or killed each year by firearms, abandonment of the 2nd amendment on the other. it's a tricky and slipperly slope we are discussing here.
As I stated, you are not wrong about torture being against american principles. I just do not agree with it being taken off the table as an option for the reasons I mentioned previously.

Agreed, it is a tricky and slippery slope. :)
 

Vortex

Former Staff
Dec 2006
19,921
8,636
home
And you will all vote for him again...Bottomline.

Great job deflecting away from my main point. The only reason that torture and waterboarding became a hotbed issue was to undermine a republican President. It's not based upon a moral position, one is used, but it is not the basis of the argument...especially when much worse is excused by the same under a Democrat Pres.

That you cannot and will not acccept that every candidate the right has now is a better option...shows it is what it is. The left will accept anything to avoid fiscal responsibility, anything to hopefully raise taxes on Corps and "the rich", continue to blame the same entity that the liberal ideologists (through regulations and government controls) have hamstrung and refuse to allow the free market system to do what it should be able to do.

Duly noted that you used the term "fix" the economy, liberals are still trying to find the quick fix, instead of recognizing that the only "fix" is American business doing it's business. It's like looking for a fad diet instead of decreasing calories and burning calories...Instead hope their is a way to accomplish the goal without doing the hard work.
There has been no US president that I know of who tried to legalize torture - waterboarding is torture. That is why it became a hotbed issue.

Many who were for Obama are against him now because reports are he still allows extraordinary renditions, a program begun by Clinton and expounded and magnified by Bush. I know I have criticized Clinton for his no-fly zones policies and his extraordinary rendition program. I'm one of those who have issues and criticize the Obama administration for maintaining so many of the Bush policies, their use of extraordinary renditions being just one.

Like I said, if the GOP offered a credible candidate I would consider that candidate. Now, as it stands, Obama is still the lesser of the evils that are up for consideration.

Given that you do not see that the American businesses have been doing their business at the expense of the workers and consumers simply proves that you don't have a clue about the ills of our economy and why it is in such sad shape. You preach capitalism but you ignore one of the most basic tenets of capitalism. You have to spend money to make money. Money has to be put into the economy so that the economy can be corrected. Businesses aren't doing it despite the fact that they still have the tax breaks they say they need. When corporations show such huge profits and millionaires sit on their tax dollars because of deductions or the accountants they can afford to hire while the rest of the nation is in decline, there is a problem. Your failure to see that is your problem, you cannot make your problem mine and you cannot use your problem to justify keeping things as they have been since Reagan began the wacky economic policies and government trends that have harmed our nation. Trickle down only means that it took a long time for things to go to shit while the rich kept getting rich.

.
 
Aug 2010
29,683
2,134
See you in a new existence!
The question is not whether you can make them talk, but whether the things they say are true, relevant, and timely. The problem with torture is that a certain percentage of the population will say ANYTHING to make it stop. I think the percentage is 99%
Agreed there. The dispute the extremists on this forum seem to be wrapped around isn't the immorality of toture nor that it goes against every American ideal, but that one side says it's 100% effective and the other side says it is 0% effective. The truth, as shown in the article, is that it is somewhere in between. I'm not going to become bogged down in numbers. It doesn't matter to me if it is only 1% effective or 99% effective, the fact still remains torture is immoral.
 

Jets

Former Staff
Feb 2011
24,071
15,226
New York
But it is a bad example to use for discussion purposes. The Bush administration had the intel without enhanced interrogation, they knew OBL was determined to strike and they did nothing.

The Clinton state department and intelligence community had been working on a deal with the Taliban to turn over OBL and to disband or destroy the terror training camps. That completion of he deal was too close to the election, the Taliban didn't want to hand over OBL and have the terms abandoned or rejected by the new admin, the Bush admin. So the Taliban waited until Bush took over to try to get the deal completed, to hand over OBL for the lifting of some of the sanctions (and presumably the unfreezing of some of their accounts).

And the retired Air Force Colonel who specialized in interrogations answered your question for you:
.
By contrast, it is easy to find experienced U.S. officers who argue precisely the opposite. Meet, for example, retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was "not nice," he says. "But we did not physically abuse them." Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die. Yet -- as he remembers saying to the "desperate and honorable officers" who wanted him to move faster -- "if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything," which would be pointless. Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn't know "any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea."​
.
I ask again, why are so many people unwilling to give up freedoms but so willing to sell their souls for security?.
You pose a good question. I would say that since 2001 the majority of peoples opinions changed regarding terrorism. Between the attacks and the beheadings shown on tv, a number of people became so scared and enraged, that security trumped humanity as a first response. imo.