I am saying, Valerie, that if hundreds or thousands of innocent lives are at stake and time is of the essence, I don't think we can be too picky about what they do to a terrorist to get the information necessary to stop those deaths from happening.
I think intellectual honesty requires that we at least look at that.
It's all well and good to say that honorable people stand on principle and that Christians would not violate their principles no matter what. But what about a principle of savings hundreds or thousands of innocent lives and doing whatever is necessary to do that?
It's sort of the principle involved in dropping the Atomic bomb. Is it justifiable to kill tens of thousands to save millions? That was the choice our leaders were up against at that time.
Was the secret service agent justified in shooting off that toe? It's a question everybody is determinably avoiding isn't it.
It is the situation that probably resulted in the directive to the Navy Seals to shoot on sight. Unlike the Nazi leaders in Germany, we were dealing with a person who was plotting and who was capable of causing thousands of more deaths to innocents in the USA and elsewhere. Was it necessary to shoot him? I don't know. I can't celebrate that, but I also can't find it in my heart to feel real bad about the fact they did.
Intellectual honesty requires that all this be included in the debate.
intellectual honesty requires that one not claim that any of the intel that helped get osama bin laden came from torture.
the only thing that indicates that is spin from cheney rummy and company saying that the program "may" have resulted in information.
perhaps listening to facts and not their spin might be helpful. john mccain made that pretty clear yesterday, i'd think.
you either are for or agin... there can't be a middle ground because like being pregnant, there's not really any such thing as being a little bit tortured.
May 14--the Telegraph:
And he confirmed it on national television in an NBC Tonight interview.
There certainly are degrees of pain, injury, maiming, permanent effects. Again it should be part of the debate as to whether that which does not produce intense pain, injury, maiming, or permanent effect is 'torture'. Don't you think it trivializes what is really torture to throw a little discomfort, inconvenience, non-harmful deprivation, humiliation, embarrassment, etc. into the same pot as the horrible things that were done to John McCain and say it is all torture? That there is no difference?
It is much the same illogic as saying the guys putting a calendar pinup in their office cubicle is 'sexual harrassment' to the same degree as the boss requiring sexual favors from employees or they will not receive a raise, or promotion, and/or keep their job.
Again I have never and will not agree that enhanced interrogation should be the policy or practice of our country. And any person who intentionally uses such practices to find out whether somebody knows anything or to embarrass or humiliate people should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
But there is that time that choices must be made when there are innocent lives at stake that the policy no longer works. And I think it is really foolish and short sighted not to acknowledge or at least be willing to include that in the debate.
Was the Secret Service agent wrong to shoot off that toe and thereby save an innocent life? So far none of you who seem to be reluctant to actually debate this issue have been willing to comment on that.
Last edited:
