President Obama DERELICT at his number 1 responsibilty

[Iriemon]

I already answered this when you asked me previously. It may have been another thread (sorry, don't remember). No, I do not believe in what you posted above. The homes broken into without warrants -- if substantial intel was already in the possession of the CIA, possibly. Not sure.

Wait a minute. You were just bitching I referred you to other threads, when I gave you the specific thread and post numbers.

And now you are vaguely referring me to some thread without answering the questions.

Are we going to play by the same rules? Or is this where I'm entitled to put words in your mouth as you did mine?

Would you be willing to willing to allow torture of Americans, allow Americans to be indefinitely jailed without trial, and allow American homes to be broken into without warrants to save an innocent American life?

Simple yes or no question.

Are you blind? I just did answer your question!!

Oh? Was it yes or no? Or should I just put words in your mouth?

No, I'm not blind. It's plain to see that you did not answer the questions about torturing Americans, locking them away indefinitely without trials.

The one question you did answer was breaking into homes, and that was conditionally for a "simple yes or no question".

Would you be willing to willing to allow torture of Americans, allow Americans to be indefinitely jailed without trial, and allow American homes to be broken into without warrants to save an innocent American life?

Simple yes or no question.

What is it with you changing things around talking about torturing Americans anyway? Terrorists are the bad guys last I checked.

You still haven't given me a yes or no answer to my question. The more you avoid it the more you appear to be ok with sacrificing American lives.

It is the answer to your question.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Wait a minute. You were just bitching I referred you to other threads, when I gave you the specific thread and post numbers.

And now you are vaguely referring me to some thread without answering the questions.

Are we going to play by the same rules? Or is this where I'm entitled to put words in your mouth as you did mine?

Would you be willing to willing to allow torture of Americans, allow Americans to be indefinitely jailed without trial, and allow American homes to be broken into without warrants to save an innocent American life?

Simple yes or no question.

Are you blind? I just did answer your question!!

Oh? Was it yes or no? Or should I just put words in your mouth?

No, I'm not blind. It's plain to see that you did not answer the questions about torturing Americans, locking them away indefinitely without trials.

The one question you did answer was breaking into homes, and that was conditionally for a "simple yes or no question".

Would you be willing to willing to allow torture of Americans, allow Americans to be indefinitely jailed without trial, and allow American homes to be broken into without warrants to save an innocent American life?

Simple yes or no question.

What is it with you changing things around talking about torturing Americans anyway? Terrorists are the bad guys last I checked.

You still haven't given me a yes or no answer to my question. The more you avoid it the more you appear to be ok with sacrificing American lives.

It is the answer to your question.

Wow, your reading comprehension skills need work. What part of this does not answer your question: No, I do not believe in what you posted above (The above part being question one and two that you asked. Do you need me to retype them for you?). The homes broken into without warrants -- if substantial intel was already in the possession of the CIA, possibly. Not sure. Ok, take this as a yes - if substantial intel was already in possession of the CIA and the break-in was due to impending harm to this country. Otherwise, no.

Last I checked, terrorists were the bad guys not Americans.

 

[Iriemon]

Are you blind? I just did answer your question!!

Oh? Was it yes or no? Or should I just put words in your mouth?

No, I'm not blind. It's plain to see that you did not answer the questions about torturing Americans, locking them away indefinitely without trials.

The one question you did answer was breaking into homes, and that was conditionally for a "simple yes or no question".

Would you be willing to willing to allow torture of Americans, allow Americans to be indefinitely jailed without trial, and allow American homes to be broken into without warrants to save an innocent American life?

Simple yes or no question.

What is it with you changing things around talking about torturing Americans anyway? Terrorists are the bad guys last I checked.

You still haven't given me a yes or no answer to my question. The more you avoid it the more you appear to be ok with sacrificing American lives.

It is the answer to your question.

Wow, your reading comprehension skills need work. What part of this does not answer your question: No, I do not believe in what you posted above (The above part being question one and two that you asked. Do you need me to retype them for you?). The homes broken into without warrants -- if substantial intel was already in the possession of the CIA, possibly. Not sure. Ok, take this as a yes - if substantial intel was already in possession of the CIA and the break-in was due to impending harm to this country. Otherwise, no.

Last I checked, terrorists were the bad guys not Americans.

Thanks. Now to follow your previous tack, I'll respond by quoting you: "So your answer is yes, you'd be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives. I hope no one you love is part of the 'short term harmed'."

But the real answer is, yes, there are some things that are worth sacrificing innocent American lives for.

We both agree that we should not torture Americans and do away with trials to save innocent lives, and we both would not sacrifice the requirement that law enforcement have substantial intel (which is what a warrant tests) before breaking into a house.

No that we have established that there are some things that are worth sacrificing innocent American lives for, the next question is not torturing non-Americans worth sacrificing innocent American lives for? It took us 5 pages to get to this point, but that answer is what is in the threads I referred you to where that issue was discussed over 25 pages.

And part of the answer lies in the fact that we both agree that we don't want Americans tortured. If the rule is adopted that torture is OK, then an American tourist arrested in Turkey or Italy or Spain can be legitimately tortured. I don't want Americans subject to torture, as you don't.

 

[Iriemon]

Hmm....

Iriemon/Zoomboing/Others: Despite some derailment with petty wordplays, you guys have reached upon several main issues that seem to be the primary points of debate:

Sometimes the petty wordplay is unavoidable, to get to the point.

1.) Are the techniques in question, actually torture, or just hasher methods of interrogation?

2.) Does the release of this information "tip our hand" too much toward those who seek to harm us?

3.) 1.) Can the situation call for abandoning our usual moral principles against enemies, and utilize any means necessary in a noble attempt to save american lives?

Irrelevant note: Torture is ineffective. This is naive. To be sure, nothing is ever 100%, but a little duress can do wonders to cough up the goods. Some people here seem to have the belief that if we ask the terrorists nicely they'll tell us everything about their friends. If you believe this, you vastly underestimate their commitment, which is impressively extreme.

It's not irrelevant, because if torture is ineffective there is absolutely no reason to do it. I can agree with your point that to say torture is completely ineffective is naive. Torture is also subject to a lot of abuse as well as well as false information and hit and miss. It is nice in the hypothetic world to say, "If you knew that the bad guy had information that would prevent 100,000 deaths and you knew if you tortured him you could prevent the deaths etc." In the real world, that scenario rarely if ever happens. More often you have a guy who you think might know something because he is an Arab captured in Iraq or Afghanistan, so let's torture him a bit to find out. Or we really want to prove that Hussein was in bed with AQ, so lets torture him and see if we can get him to say so. Allowing torture opens the door to too much abuse for too little gain.

My answers to the above questions:

1.) No. The welfare and lasting health of the detainees was preserved and watched. The used psychology against the detainees, not pain. That's like saying Fear Factor is torture.

I've never been waterboarded so I cannot make a personal assessement. I am more persuaded by the fact that our own Govt has prosecuted and sentenced people for war crimes for doing it, as well as the fact that I wouldn't want it legitimately done to Americans suspected of a crime.

2.) Yes it does. Sometimes its not what you will do, but the FEAR of what you will do that is most effective. Releasing this info was a head scratcher to me, as its only purpose seems to be to satisfy the bloodlust of the Bush/GOP haters. Giving potential detainees a heads up as to exactly how far we will go, makes interrogations nearly pointless going forward. I agree with others here that it also has to put doubt in the minds of our allies as to whether they can trust us to keep their secrets. Again, not sure exactly what Obama was seeking to gain here, as it does actually seem to be him pandering to the far-left. The witchhunt has begun.

Someone else made the point that when you are waterboard you know they are not going to kill you. It's not fear of death but fear of being subjected to pain. And unless we are going to adopt a policy that it is ok to apply pain to coerce information, your argument is going to be the case. But in the dark secluded cell far away, there is always the fear that the interrogator won't follow the rules.

3.) Reading here has shifted my opinion due to some good points by Iriemon. As an ideal I think he/she has a point here that torture will rally support for the enemy, not the US. Even the appearance of torture is bad in this regard. It fuels the hatred of enemies and the doubts of our allies. Sure, it may save lives in the here and now, but what is the cost down the road? Will the thousand lives saved today be worth the tens of thousands in a future war that could have been averted? I think we can have our principles AND save innocent american lives. The saying "An eye for an eye only leaves the whole world blind" applies here. In the interest of honesty though, I'd have to say that if it was my family in danger, I would be a hypocrite and jump through any hurdle, take out anyone, torture anybody to protect them. I'm not sure if that clouds my answer or not, but there it is.

Sure we can emotionalize the issue. If it was my daughters lives at stake, I'd break all kinds of laws to save her. That is not the test of what the laws should be.

Sidebar to Irie: I disagree that our American ideals will win over there religious beliefs. I'm not sure how you expect this to happen, and would love to hear a rational explanation for it. In a democratic society, I'd agree. But in the freedom-surpressed middle east, they seem to be going backwards to MORE extremism... not more freedoms. There freaks and tyrants are reverred as prophets, instead of laughed out or locked up. Without the freedom to embrace other ideas, how do we expect our ideas to take hold?

I believe that part of the reason we've seen a backlash to more extremism in places like Iraq is at least partly in response to US actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. I also believe that fundamentally, most people of all cultures respond positively to things like human rights, liberty, due process, equality, democracy, etc. even if their leaders don't. I think it is important for America to stand for the qualities in dealing with other nations as well.

To put in perspective, if a hypothetical ME superpower invaded and occupied Canada and Mexico on pretext, do you think our government would elect a moderate who promised to not develop nukes?

Don't hate my criticisms here, I'm just responding as a reader.... Love peace and all that stuff

Not at all -- good points.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Thanks. Now to follow your previous tack, I'll respond: So your answer is yes, you'd be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives. I hope no one you love is part of the 'short term harmed'.

No, this is what you believe, as stated here: I wrote: "You still haven't given me a yes or no answer to my question. The more you avoid it the more you appear to be ok with sacrificing American lives." This was your response: "It is the answer to your question." You believe it's ok to let innocent Americans die rather than use harsh interrogation techniques on terrorists, not me.

But the answer is, yes, there are some things that are worth sacrificing innocent American lives for.

Not using harsh interrogation techniques on terrorists puts innocent American lives at risk. This is not a risk any American should have to take. Again your belief is that these tactics should be done away with and innocent Americans be damned.

We both agree that we should not torture Americans and do away with trials to save innocent lives, and we both would not sacrifice the requirement that law enforcement have substantial intel (which is what a warrant tests) before breaking into a house.

No that we have established that there are some things that are worth sacrificing innocent American lives for

I do no agree to this, as you well know. Stop twisting my words.

the next question is not torturing non-Americans - you can't even call them terrorists? - worth sacrificing innocent American lives for? It took us 5 pages to get to this point, but that answer is what is in the threads I referred you to where that issue was discussed over 25 pages.

And part of the answer lies in the fact that we both agree that we don't want Americans tortured. If the rule is adopted that torture is OK, then an American tourist arrested in Turkey or Italy or Spain can be legitimately tortured. I don't want Americans subject to torture, as you don't.

What makes you think that if we no longer use harsh interrogation techniques on terrorists in the U.S. that they will stop torturing and killing our people? You seem to be under the impression that these terrorists are playing by some kind of rules of war. They aren't. The U.S. no longer using these techniques makes us look weak and lets the enemy know that they don't have to give up any intel to us because there are no consequences if they remain silent.

.

 

[Iriemon]

Thanks. Now to follow your previous tack, I'll respond: So your answer is yes, you'd be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives. I hope no one you love is part of the 'short term harmed'.

No, ...

Oops, we are back to square one again then. I thought you said you had answered! Until we get this straight we cannot talk about the rest because it is meaningless unless we determine whether you agree there are somethings worth sacrificing lives for.

Lets' try again.

So would you be willing to torture Americans if it might save innocent American lives?

Would allow Americans to be indefinitely jailed without trial, if it might save an innocent American lives?

Would you allow American homes to be broken into without warrants or good intel if it might save an innocent American lives?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Would you be willing to willing to allow torture of Americans, allow Americans to be indefinitely jailed without trial, and allow American homes to be broken into without warrants to save an innocent American life?

Simple yes or no question.

But you see, most terrorists are not American citizens and as such are not guaranteed the same rights as American citizens. So the answer to your question is obvious.

Americans shall be granted all rights and protections outlined in the Constitution and terrorists who are citizens of a foreign nation shall not.

 

[Iriemon]

Would you be willing to willing to allow torture of Americans, allow Americans to be indefinitely jailed without trial, and allow American homes to be broken into without warrants to save an innocent American life?

Simple yes or no question.

But you see, most terrorists are not American citizens and as such are not guaranteed the same rights as American citizens. So the answer to your question is obvious.

Americans shall be granted all rights and protections outlined in the Constitution and terrorists who are citizens of a foreign nation shall not.

I agree they are not American citizens; I disagree that non-Americans are not entitled to basic rights just because they are not Americans. Are country was founded on the proposition that it is self evident that all persons are created equal before the law, not just American citizens.

But that's really all irrelevant to the point here.

The important issue here is whether there are some principles and some things that are worth the possibility of sacrificing innocent lives for.

I think the anwer is self evident as well. Of course there are. There are thousands of innocent lives buried in France for that proposition. Every time we put someone on trial there is a risk that a guilty person goes free and risks the lives of innocent persons.

But Zoom is playing word games to avoid saying that because he knows it undermines his whole argument.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Would you be willing to willing to allow torture of Americans, allow Americans to be indefinitely jailed without trial, and allow American homes to be broken into without warrants to save an innocent American life?

Simple yes or no question.

But you see, most terrorists are not American citizens and as such are not guaranteed the same rights as American citizens. So the answer to your question is obvious.

Americans shall be granted all rights and protections outlined in the Constitution and terrorists who are citizens of a foreign nation shall not.

I agree they are not American citizens; I disagree that non-Americans are not entitled to basic rights just because they are not Americans. Are country was founded on the proposition that it is self evident that all persons are created equal before the law, not just American citizens.

But that's really all irrelevant to the point here.

The important issue here is whether there are some principles and some things that are worth the possibility of sacrificing innocent lives for.

I think the anwer is self evident as well. Of course there are. There are thousands of innocent lives buried in France for that proposition. Every time we put someone on trial there is a risk that a guilty person goes free and risks the lives of innocent persons.

But Zoom is playing word games to avoid saying that because he knows it undermines his whole argument.

But your question was specific in asking, do you think Americans should be killed (I am assuming you were implying by other Americans) to save lives (again assuming you were implying American lives)

The relevant adjective to me is "innocent'. if a person, American or not, is threatening to kill a host of people for no other reason than to kill them and we have solid evidence proving that the plan is in motion, then anything goes when it comes to stopping that from happening. I would give up a conviction on civil rights violations and save the potential victims rather than get an arrest and conviction if it meant that innocent people were killed.

 

[Iriemon]

But you see, most terrorists are not American citizens and as such are not guaranteed the same rights as American citizens. So the answer to your question is obvious.

Americans shall be granted all rights and protections outlined in the Constitution and terrorists who are citizens of a foreign nation shall not.

I agree they are not American citizens; I disagree that non-Americans are not entitled to basic rights just because they are not Americans. Are country was founded on the proposition that it is self evident that all persons are created equal before the law, not just American citizens.

But that's really all irrelevant to the point here.

The important issue here is whether there are some principles and some things that are worth the possibility of sacrificing innocent lives for.

I think the anwer is self evident as well. Of course there are. There are thousands of innocent lives buried in France for that proposition. Every time we put someone on trial there is a risk that a guilty person goes free and risks the lives of innocent persons.

But Zoom is playing word games to avoid saying that because he knows it undermines his whole argument.

But your question was specific in asking, do you think Americans should be killed (I am assuming you were implying by other Americans) to save lives (again assuming you were implying American lives)

The relevant adjective to me is "innocent'. if a person, American or not, is threatening to kill a host of people for no other reason than to kill them and we have solid evidence proving that the plan is in motion, then anything goes when it comes to stopping that from happening. I would give up a conviction on civil rights violations and save the potential victims rather than get an arrest and conviction if it meant that innocent people were killed.

So answer my question.

Would you be willing to willing to allow torture of Americans, allow Americans to be indefinitely jailed without trial, and allow American homes to be broken into without warrants to save an innocent American life?

Simple yes or no question.

Eliminating trials would save innocent lives, because sometimes the guilty go free. Is that one of the "anything goes" rule for you as well?

How about torturing Americans. It's possible you could torture gang members or drug dealers or organized crime members and save many lives. Is that anything goes? Why not?

 

[Zoom-boing]

You are the one mincing words Irieman. When you ask if someone thinks Americans should be tortured, do you mean the average person walking down the street? If so, why would they need to be tortured? What would the purpose be? Do they have intel on impending attacks on the U.S. and refuse to give up the info? Then by all means, harshly interrogate them because they are terrorists, regardless of where they live. Or do you mean soldiers? If you mean soldiers, say so. When I asked you my yes or no question I was very specific; you are vague.

I'd like there to be no war, no terror, no anything but I don't live in a dream world. We are at war and our guys are going to get captured by the bad guys and they are going to be tortured whether we stop harsh interrogation techniques on their guys or not. Now by your question of 'would I want Americans tortured' do you mean 'would I want American soldiers tortured', I would never want our guys hurt in anyway. Who would? But it isn't that simple because, as I've pointed out before, they don't play by any rules. And I've also said that given a choice between being beheading and being water boarded, water boarding is the better option. Now if by that answer you are under the impression that this means I want our guys tortured, you'd be mistaken.

You believe that innocent American lives are the price we have to pay in order to remain that 'shinning light on the hill' and harsh interrogation techniques should be abandoned as you believe it tarnishes our country. (once again, if I am wrong in this please correct me). I believe that the United States should do whatever it takes, including utilizing harsh interrogation techniques, in order to gain intel that could save innocent American lives. If those harsh interrogation techniques are used against our guys and it saves innocent American lives, then our guys are doing their job.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I agree they are not American citizens; I disagree that non-Americans are not entitled to basic rights just because they are not Americans. Are country was founded on the proposition that it is self evident that all persons are created equal before the law, not just American citizens.

But that's really all irrelevant to the point here.

The important issue here is whether there are some principles and some things that are worth the possibility of sacrificing innocent lives for.

I think the anwer is self evident as well. Of course there are. There are thousands of innocent lives buried in France for that proposition. Every time we put someone on trial there is a risk that a guilty person goes free and risks the lives of innocent persons.

But Zoom is playing word games to avoid saying that because he knows it undermines his whole argument.

But your question was specific in asking, do you think Americans should be killed (I am assuming you were implying by other Americans) to save lives (again assuming you were implying American lives)

The relevant adjective to me is "innocent'. if a person, American or not, is threatening to kill a host of people for no other reason than to kill them and we have solid evidence proving that the plan is in motion, then anything goes when it comes to stopping that from happening. I would give up a conviction on civil rights violations and save the potential victims rather than get an arrest and conviction if it meant that innocent people were killed.

So answer my question.

I thought I did.

Would you be willing to willing to allow torture of Americans, allow Americans to be indefinitely jailed without trial, and allow American homes to be broken into without warrants to save an innocent American life?

Simple yes or no question.

No such thing as a simple yes or no here. The context is very important. if a man or group of men, American or not, was planning the mass murder of innocent people for any reason, then any and all efforts must be made to stop that from happening.

I have to say as an aside, yet again, that I do not believe the CIA interrogation techniques were torture so we might not be able to agree on terms here.

That said, if these techniques were use on a person or group of persons, American or not, and information was obtained that saved the lives of the potential victims of a plot, I say all's well. Once the plot was foiled, If the persons are Americans, they will get their trial, if they are not Americans, they can rot in prison with no trial. As I have said, foreigners are not accorded the same protections as American citizens. As far as search warrants go, if enhanced interrogation techniques led to information that justified a search of an American's property, then a warrant should be issued promptly, if the search is to be executed on a non-citizen then no warrant is needed. And I believe there are some occasions where searches can be executed legally without warrants.

Eliminating trials would save innocent lives, because sometimes the guilty go free. Is that one of the "anything goes" rule for you as well?

You don't read very well. I said i would be happy to forgo an arrest and conviction because of civil rights violations than see innocent people killed, so the trial is forfeit in this case, that is if the person being interrogated is an American. If not there would be no civil rights violations and the trial would not be forfeit.

How about torturing Americans. It's possible you could torture gang members or drug dealers or organized crime members and save many lives. Is that anything goes? Why not?

The term innocent comes into play here again. If police knew of a gang plot to commit drive by shooting and the plot could be foiled by using enhanced interrogation techniques then it's fine.

but your question begins to become irrelevant here as police do not so much prevent crime as they react to crime. In most cases people are arrested and tried after a murder or crime has been committed so interrogation becomes a different game.

Drug dealers,IMO, should not even be considered here. the people who buy drugs do so voluntarily and are not victims.

 

[Iriemon]

But your question was specific in asking, do you think Americans should be killed (I am assuming you were implying by other Americans) to save lives (again assuming you were implying American lives)

The relevant adjective to me is "innocent'. if a person, American or not, is threatening to kill a host of people for no other reason than to kill them and we have solid evidence proving that the plan is in motion, then anything goes when it comes to stopping that from happening. I would give up a conviction on civil rights violations and save the potential victims rather than get an arrest and conviction if it meant that innocent people were killed.

I thought I did.



No such thing as a simple yes or no here. The context is very important. if a man or group of men, American or not, was planning the mass murder of innocent people for any reason, then any and all efforts must be made to stop that from happening.

I have to say as an aside, yet again, that I do not believe the CIA interrogation techniques were torture so we might not be able to agree on terms here.

That said, if these techniques were use on a person or group of persons, American or not, and information was obtained that saved the lives of the potential victims of a plot, I say all's well. Once the plot was foiled, If the persons are Americans, they will get their trial, if they are not Americans, they can rot in prison with no trial. As I have said, foreigners are not accorded the same protections as American citizens. As far as search warrants go, if enhanced interrogation techniques led to information that justified a search of an American's property, then a warrant should be issued promptly, if the search is to be executed on a non-citizen then no warrant is needed. And I believe there are some occasions where searches can be executed legally without warrants.



You don't read very well. I said i would be happy to forgo an arrest and conviction because of civil rights violations than see innocent people killed, so the trial is forfeit in this case, that is if the person being interrogated is an American. If not there would be no civil rights violations and the trial would not be forfeit.

How about torturing Americans. It's possible you could torture gang members or drug dealers or organized crime members and save many lives. Is that anything goes? Why not?

The term innocent comes into play here again. If police knew of a gang plot to commit drive by shooting and the plot could be foiled by using enhanced interrogation techniques then it's fine.

but your question begins to become irrelevant here as police do not so much prevent crime as they react to crime. In most cases people are arrested and tried after a murder or crime has been committed so interrogation becomes a different game.

Drug dealers,IMO, should not even be considered here. the people who buy drugs do so voluntarily and are not victims.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you are saying is that you're in favor of a rule that allows Americans to be tortured and Americans to be denied a trial to prove their guilt in certain circumstances.

I can see why you'd have no problem with waterboarding.

 

[Newby]

Iriemon lives in her own little world where only her little hypothetical rules apply. Reality is no where in sight. Kudos to you guys for even attempting any kind of an intellectually honest discussion with her.

 

[Iriemon]

Iriemon lives in her own little world where only her little hypothetical rules apply. Reality is no where in sight. Kudos to you guys for even attempting any kind of an intellectually honest discussion with her.

Sure thing, Pouty. Still got your nose out of joint after getting embarrassed for being proved wrong about Obama's "tripling" spending and promising no earmarks?

And speaking of which, why would you refer to me as a "her"? Consistent with your MO of making baseless assumptions about things you know nothing about?

 

[Newby]

Iriemon lives in her own little world where only her little hypothetical rules apply. Reality is no where in sight. Kudos to you guys for even attempting any kind of an intellectually honest discussion with her.

Sure thing, Pouty. Still got your nose out of joint after getting embarrassed for being proved wrong about Obama's "tripling" spending and promising no earmarks?

And speaking of which, why would you refer to me as a "her"? Consistent with your MO of making baseless assumptions about things you know nothing about?

My nose is doing just fine, but thanks for your concern.

Just the impression that I get, correct me if I'm wrong. Btw, your "MO" is a bit more legendary than mine. Congrats!

 

[Skull Pilot]

I thought I did.



No such thing as a simple yes or no here. The context is very important. if a man or group of men, American or not, was planning the mass murder of innocent people for any reason, then any and all efforts must be made to stop that from happening.

I have to say as an aside, yet again, that I do not believe the CIA interrogation techniques were torture so we might not be able to agree on terms here.

That said, if these techniques were use on a person or group of persons, American or not, and information was obtained that saved the lives of the potential victims of a plot, I say all's well. Once the plot was foiled, If the persons are Americans, they will get their trial, if they are not Americans, they can rot in prison with no trial. As I have said, foreigners are not accorded the same protections as American citizens. As far as search warrants go, if enhanced interrogation techniques led to information that justified a search of an American's property, then a warrant should be issued promptly, if the search is to be executed on a non-citizen then no warrant is needed. And I believe there are some occasions where searches can be executed legally without warrants.



You don't read very well. I said i would be happy to forgo an arrest and conviction because of civil rights violations than see innocent people killed, so the trial is forfeit in this case, that is if the person being interrogated is an American. If not there would be no civil rights violations and the trial would not be forfeit.



The term innocent comes into play here again. If police knew of a gang plot to commit drive by shooting and the plot could be foiled by using enhanced interrogation techniques then it's fine.

but your question begins to become irrelevant here as police do not so much prevent crime as they react to crime. In most cases people are arrested and tried after a murder or crime has been committed so interrogation becomes a different game.

Drug dealers,IMO, should not even be considered here. the people who buy drugs do so voluntarily and are not victims.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you are saying is that you're in favor of a rule that allows Americans to be tortured and Americans to be denied a trial to prove their guilt in certain circumstances.

I can see why you'd have no problem with waterboarding.

We are obviously disagreeing on terms here. I do not believe the CIA enhanced interrogation techniques are torture. If a cup of water and a towel can be used to save lives by making a criminal or terrorist scared but in no other way harms them, what's the big deal?

Once again, you do not read very well. i never said an American should be denied a trial did I? what I said was I would rather forfeit a trial because of a civil rights violation than to see innocent people die. What's more important to you, letting people die and sending a killer to prison after the fact or saving the lives of his potential victims by harshly interrogating him and risking he goes free?

 

[Newby]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you are saying is that you're in favor of a rule that allows Americans to be tortured and Americans to be denied a trial to prove their guilt in certain circumstances.

I can see why you'd have no problem with waterboarding.

We are obviously disagreeing on terms here. I do not believe the CIA enhanced interrogation techniques are torture. If a cup of water and a towel can be used to save lives by making a criminal or terrorist scared but in no other way harms them, what's the big deal?

Once again, you do not read very well. i never said an American should be denied a trial did I? what I said was I would rather forfeit a trial because of a civil rights violation than to see innocent people die. What's more important to you, letting people die and sending a killer to prison after the fact or saving the lives of his potential victims by harshly interrogating him and risking he goes free?

The 'big deal' is that they would then have to give up their little partisan witch hunt of the Bush administration for 'torture'. Obama has started something that's going to backfire in his face on this one, and he has all of his little lemmings out stoking the flames. I'm wondering how releasing memos and pictures is helping to improve the American image in the eyes of the world, how it's going to keep our troops stationed in hostile area more safe? They don't care about any of that tho, all they care about is bringing down the evil 'Bush' even tho he's already history. They're lunatics.

 

[Iriemon]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you are saying is that you're in favor of a rule that allows Americans to be tortured and Americans to be denied a trial to prove their guilt in certain circumstances.

I can see why you'd have no problem with waterboarding.

We are obviously disagreeing on terms here. I do not believe the CIA enhanced interrogation techniques are torture. If a cup of water and a towel can be used to save lives by making a criminal or terrorist scared but in no other way harms them, what's the big deal?

That's fine; I've explained my position enough times.

Once again, you do not read very well. i never said an American should be denied a trial did I? what I said was I would rather forfeit a trial because of a civil rights violation than to see innocent people die. What's more important to you, letting people die and sending a killer to prison after the fact or saving the lives of his potential victims by harshly interrogating him and risking he goes free?

Well, you could presume it was my reading. I read forfeit a trial to mean you don't get one. What does you mean by forfeit a trial?

I'm against a rule allowing torture.

 

[knightowl]

We are obviously disagreeing on terms here. I do not believe the CIA enhanced interrogation techniques are torture. If a cup of water and a towel can be used to save lives by making a criminal or terrorist scared but in no other way harms them, what's the big deal?

Once again, you do not read very well. i never said an American should be denied a trial did I? what I said was I would rather forfeit a trial because of a civil rights violation than to see innocent people die. What's more important to you, letting people die and sending a killer to prison after the fact or saving the lives of his potential victims by harshly interrogating him and risking he goes free?

Some excellent points presented by SP here. I followed one of the links posted on her to a NY Times article on what techniques were in question here. I recommend they be read, as it was pretty weaksauce imo. In one case, they wanted to put a terrorist (I believe the mastermind behind the 911 attacks, whatever his name was) in a small room with a harmless fuzzy caterpillar since he had a fear of insects. They wanted to tell him that the insect would sting and bite him, but were instructed they could not. They had to tell him that the insect wouldn't harm him, repeatedly, since the previous request was considered too extreme. These are not guys off the leash doing whatever they felt like, as is being portrayed by the left. They had a strict framework to work in, and they did so.

Iriemon, your stated reasoning behind the actual definition of these items as torture was that we previously would have prosecuted people for using some of these techniques under torture statutes. I contend that not all laws are right and don't always reflect current values and/or ideas. For instance, for a long time here in my state of Virginia, it was legally acceptable, by law, to kill your wife and/or lover if you caught them in the middle of an affair. I'm sure there were also many laws prohibiting the rights of african americans around as well. These laws make no sense to us today and have been shown to be outmoded. Basing the current validity of these practices on old laws made decades ago is equally pointless.

I can see the point your trying to make to SP & ZB here, but I think you are missing theirs. They are not, as you are suggesting, advocating blind, anything-goes processes to acquire information (either foreignly or domestic). I think the important thing to note is that these captured guys were not innocent people walking up the street. They are criminals. They freely admit what they did, with pride. For their attacks, I believe they deserve the death penalty. Making them sweat a little (again, not pain-filled torture which I oppose, but some psychological games) to gain information is well within reason. We often use similar concepts (though significantly milder) in police interrogations (playing on fears, manipulating the environment, etc) on american citizens, and I see no harm there either.

If Obama wants to stop these techniques, I'd be against it, but digress; the american people voted for his way, and he clearly stated he was against them. However, I contend his release of the memos and the media circus created by it IS negative for America, and only serves to worsen our image on several fronts. It also strikes me as horrible that we are considering prosecuting interrogators (sp?) ex post facto for operating within the legal realm of their time (although I strongly suspect that the case will get thrown out for that very reason). This was a pointless move, and definitely diminishes the president somewhat in my mind.